Sentence examples for v trial from inspiring English sources

The DKCRUSH V trial is designed to elucidate the benefits of DK crush over PS in patients with ULMb.

Higher-risk patients are usually more likely to benefit from advances in medical therapy.We analyzed diabetic patients enrolled in the GUSTO V trial to assess the outcome of those randomized to the combination of half-dose reteplase and abciximab versus those randomized to reteplase.

Induction consisted of four ID cycles (idarubicin 8 mg/m, dexamethasone 20 mg/m days 1 4, 9 12, 17 19) within the German Study group (DSMM V) trial.

The PRECISION V trial was by far the biggest study to compare TACE with DEB-TACE, including 212 patients [ 8]; its primary endpoint was tumor response measured by MRI after 6 months.

In the UK, the MRC Myeloma V trial compared melphalan alone to ABCM (adriamycin, 1,3-bis 2-chloroethyl -1-nitrosoureaa (BCNU), cyclophosphamide and melphalan) and showed a significant benefit for the combination, including significant differences in achievement of plateau (61 vs 49%) and in median OS (32-chloroethyl -1-nitrosoureat 2-chloroethyl -1-nitrosourea

While the rate of stroke and SEE was 1.2 % for ximelagatran in both studies, the efficacy outcome occurred in 2.3 % of patients receiving open-label warfarin in the SPORTIF III trial, but improved to 1.2 % with blinded warfarin in the SPORTIF V trial.

So we first considered LFPs in V trials performed ON L-DOPA in patients with PD.

The demographic data used to represent this typical AF population came from the SPORTIF Stroke Prevention Using Oral Thrombin Inhibitorr in Atrial Fibrillation) III and V trials of patients with AF [ 65, 66].

The mean increase in R-RT for patients with PD was 35.3 ± 5.8% in V trials compared with healthy controls (Fig. 2).

Similarly, in the SPORTIF III and V trials [ 19, 20], two Phase III trials for the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with atrial fibrillation, patients were randomized to either warfarin or ximelagatran, another direct thrombin inhibitor.

In the matched cohorts, there was no significant difference in survival between MADIT-II-like patients in the registry and MADIT-II patients randomized to receive an ICD (2-year mortality rates: 13.9% and 15.6%, respectively; adjusted ICD Registry vs trial hazard ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.85-1.31; P =.62).