These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

132 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10083097)

  • 1. Contemporary immunosuppression in renal transplant recipients: one size does not fit all.
    Lewis RM; Schnitzler MA
    Transplant Proc; 1999; 31(1-2):254-5. PubMed ID: 10083097
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Use of Markov modeling for evaluating the cost-effectiveness of immunosuppressive therapies in renal transplant recipients.
    Lewis RL; Canafax DM; Pettit KG; DiCesare J; Kaniecki DJ; Arnold RJ; Roberts MS
    Transplant Proc; 1996 Aug; 28(4):2214-7. PubMed ID: 8769203
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. The arduous road to achieving an immunosuppression-free state in kidney transplant recipients.
    Ansari MJ; Sayegh MH
    Nat Clin Pract Nephrol; 2007 Sep; 3(9):464-5. PubMed ID: 17646858
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Immunosuppression for recipients of kidneys from non-heart-beating donors: comparison of triple therapy and OKT3 regimens.
    Kehinde EO; Wheatley T; Feehally J; Nicholson ML; Veitch PS; Bell PR
    Transplant Proc; 1996 Jun; 28(3):1338-9. PubMed ID: 8658684
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. The economics of immunosuppression in renal transplantation: a review of recent literature.
    Hutton J
    Transplant Proc; 1999; 31(1-2):1328-32. PubMed ID: 10083592
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Trends in maintenance immunosuppressive drugs used in taiwanese kidney transplant recipients: an analysis of the national health insurance research database.
    Tsai SF; Cheng CY; Shu KH; Wu MJ
    Transplant Proc; 2012 Jan; 44(1):190-2. PubMed ID: 22310612
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Analysis of cost-effectiveness and cost-utility for immunosuppressive protocols in renal transplantation.
    Keown P
    Transplant Proc; 1999; 31(1-2):1140-1. PubMed ID: 10083510
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. The cost effectiveness of tacrolimus versus microemulsified cyclosporin: a 10-year model of renal transplantation outcomes.
    Orme ME; Jurewicz WA; Kumar N; McKechnie TL
    Pharmacoeconomics; 2003; 21(17):1263-76. PubMed ID: 14986738
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Effect of extended coverage of immunosuppressive medications by medicare on the survival of cadaveric renal transplants.
    Woodward RS; Schnitzler MA; Lowell JA; Spitznagel EL; Brennan DC
    Am J Transplant; 2001 May; 1(1):69-73. PubMed ID: 12095042
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Evolving strategies in immunosuppressive therapy: the Emory experience.
    Whelchel JD; Hymes LC; Hochgelerent EL; Larsen CP; Lowance DC; O'Brien DP; Neylan JF; Pearson TC; Warshaw BL
    Clin Transpl; 1996; ():249-55. PubMed ID: 9286574
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Cost-effectiveness of Medicare's coverage of immunosuppression medications for kidney transplant recipients.
    Page TF; Woodward RS
    Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res; 2009 Oct; 9(5):435-44. PubMed ID: 19817527
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Steroid withdrawal in renal transplant recipients: pro point of view.
    Hricik DE
    Transplant Proc; 1998 Jun; 30(4):1380-2. PubMed ID: 9636559
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Cost analysis of kidney transplantation with cyclosporin A.
    Cogny-Van Weydevelt F; Dandavino R; Langlois S; Boucher A
    Transplant Proc; 2000 Mar; 32(2):434-5. PubMed ID: 10715469
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Immunosuppressive protocols at transplantation centers in Turkey.
    Haberal M; Demirağ A; Bilgin N; Arslan G; Büyükpamukçu N
    Transplant Proc; 1995 Oct; 27(5):2776-7. PubMed ID: 7482911
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Postmarketing evaluation of mycophenolate mofetil-based triple therapy immunosuppression compared with a conventional azathioprine-based regimen reveals enhanced efficacy and early pharmacoeconomic benefit after renal transplantation.
    Wüthrich RP; Weinreich T; Schwarzkopf AK; Candinas D; Binswanger U
    Transplant Proc; 1998 Dec; 30(8):4096-7. PubMed ID: 9865310
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. On realistic survival data, Neoral dosage.
    Hull AR
    Nephrol News Issues; 1996 Jan; 10(1):15-6. PubMed ID: 8709988
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Immunosuppression and immune monitoring after renal transplantation.
    Zand MS
    Semin Dial; 2005; 18(6):511-9. PubMed ID: 16398715
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Mycophenolate mofetil eliminates the rationale for antilymphocyte induction therapy in nonhaploidentical living-donor kidney transplants.
    Shaffer D; Madras PN; Conway P; Davis C; Simpson MA; Monaco AP
    Transplant Proc; 1997; 29(1-2):342-3. PubMed ID: 9123031
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Trends in the use of immunosuppressive agents by outpatients after renal transplantation at a medical center in southern Taiwan.
    Mao PC; Lee EK; Tseng PL
    Transplant Proc; 2012 Jan; 44(1):185-9. PubMed ID: 22310611
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. TGF-beta 1 gene expression in stable renal transplant recipients: influence of TGF-beta 1 gene polymorphism and immunosuppression.
    Ochsner S; Guo Z; Binswanger U; Knoflach A
    Transplant Proc; 2002 Nov; 34(7):2901-3. PubMed ID: 12431651
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.