Conservative therapy with XXXX plus @entity6303 for @entity1869 .

@entity1 @entity137 @entity6303 @entity1869 @entity209 @entity2449
OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of @entity2449 plus @entity6303 (MA) with that of MA alone for treating @entity1869 ( @entity1869 ). METHODS: This pilot study included 16 @entity1869 @entity1 who met at least one @entity209 ( @entity209 ) criterion and received either adjunctive @entity2449 plus MA (MET group) or MA monotherapy (MA group). Each @entity1 in the MA group received 160 mg of MA daily, whereas @entity1 in the MET group received the same dose of MA plus 0.5 g of @entity2449 thrice daily. Treatment response was assessed by histological examination of dilation and curettage specimens obtained after 12 weeks of therapy. RESULTS: Each group had eight @entity1 , and half of the @entity1 in each group were diagnosed with @entity209 . The complete response (CR) rate was 75% (6/8) in the MET group and 25% (2/8) in the MA group (p=0.105). Complications of @entity209 did not affect the response rates in either group. In the MET group, 75% (3/4) of the @entity1 had CR in the presence or absence of @entity209 . In the MA group, 50% (2/4) of the @entity1 with @entity209 had CR, whereas no @entity1 without @entity209 had CR. No irreversible @entity137 were observed. CONCLUSION: @entity2449 plus MA may be a potential alternative therapy for treating @entity1869 , and the @entity209 status of @entity1 may have no effect on the efficacy of @entity2449 plus MA therapy.
