In this task, you are given a passage which has a question and the context. You have to generate an answer to the question based on the information present in the context.

Ex Input:
Context: The development of human leukocyte antigen (HLA) antibody responses has been associated with worse clinical outcomes, such as bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome (BOS) and death, in lung transplant recipients (LTRs). However, the role of donor-specific HLA antibody (DSA) responses as a risk factor for poor outcomes remains controversial.', 'We prospectively screened 445 LTRs for DSA at our institution at the time of surveillance bronchoscopies for the first 2 years after transplantation between 2003 and 2008, and evaluated clinical outcomes. For this purpose, we used the combination of panel-reactive antibodies (PRA) by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and the Luminex single-antigen bead (SAB) assay (One Lambda, Canoga Park, CA).', 'We detected de novo DSA (dnDSA) in 58 of 445 (13%) LTRs in our cohort. Freedom from BOS was significantly reduced in LTRs with dnDSA versus those without dnDSA (p < 0.001). Using a Cox proportional hazards model, the development of dnDSA was associated with a significantly increased hazard ratio (HR = 6.59 [4.53 to 9.59]; p < 0.001) for BOS and high-grade BOS (Stage ≥ 2) (HR = 5.76 [3.48 to 9.52]; p < 0.001). Freedom from death was significantly reduced in LTRs with dnDSA (p < 0.001), including mortality attributable to BOS (HR = 9.86 [4.91 to 19.78]; p < 0.001).\Question: Are de novo donor-specific HLA antibodies associated with early and high-grade bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome and death after lung transplantation?

Ex Output:
Taken together, our findings provide evidence that dnDSA is associated with accelerated BOS kinetics and severity, as well as death due to BOS after lung transplantation. In addition, these data support regular monitoring for the development of dnDSA in LTRs and underscore the need for novel strategies to mitigate the increased risk of poor outcomes associated with dnDSA.


Ex Input:
Context: Patient-prosthesis mismatch has been identified as a risk factor for mortality after aortic valve replacement and for structural valve deterioration (SVD) in patients receiving a bioprosthetic aortic valve. The aim of the present study was to compare the incidence of aortic valve bioprosthesis replacement for SVD in patients with mismatch to a population without mismatch.', 'Three hundred eighty-seven adult patients who underwent aortic valve replacement with a bioprosthesis from 1974 to 2009 were retrospectively reviewed. Mismatch was considered to be present if the anticipated indexed effective orifice area was <0.70\u2009cm(2) /m(2) . The median follow-up period was 7.2 years. Follow-up was 97% complete.', "Patient-prosthesis mismatch was present in 12% of the study population (n\u2009=\u200947). Ten-year freedom from reoperation for aortic bioprosthesis replacement was 74.3\u2009±\u20093.2%. During follow-up, 111 patients underwent reoperation for aortic bioprosthesis replacement. Causes of aortic bioprosthesis replacement were SVD of the bioprosthesis (n\u2009=\u200996), paravalvular leak (n\u2009=\u200910), and acute endocarditis (n\u2009=\u20095). According to unadjusted Kaplan-Meier analysis, patients with mismatch had a higher incidence of aortic bioprosthesis replacement for SVD when compared with patients without mismatch (log rank test: p 0.05). This result was confirmed by multivariable Cox regression analysis, which identified two independent predictors of aortic bioprosthesis replacement for SVD: patients' age (hazard ratio (HR) 0.967) and patient-prosthesis mismatch (HR 2.161).\Question: Does patient-prosthesis mismatch in patients undergoing bioprosthetic aortic valve implantation increase risk of reoperation for structural valve deterioration?

Ex Output:
Patients suffering from mismatch were twice as likely to undergo reoperation for aortic bioprosthesis replacement for SVD than those without mismatch.


Ex Input:
Context: Artemisinin-based combination therapies (ACTs) are highly efficacious and safe, but data from human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected children concurrently receiving antiretroviral therapy (ART) and ACTs are limited.', 'We evaluated 28-day outcomes following malaria treatment with artemether-lumefantrine (AL) or dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine (DP) in 2 cohorts of HIV-infected Ugandan children taking various ART regimens. In one cohort, children <6 years of age were randomized to lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) or nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-based ART and treated with AL for uncomplicated malaria. In another cohort, children <12 months of age were started on nevirapine-based ART if they were eligible, and randomized to AL or DP for the treatment of their first and all subsequent uncomplicated malaria episodes.', 'There were 773 and 165 treatments for malaria with AL and DP, respectively. Initial response to therapy was excellent, with 99% clearance of parasites and <1% risk of repeat therapy within 3 days. Recurrent parasitemia within 28 days was common following AL treatment. The risk of recurrent parasitemia was significantly lower among children taking LPV/r-based ART compared with children taking nevirapine-based ART following AL treatment (15.3% vs 35.5%, P = .009), and those treated with DP compared with AL (8.6% vs 36.2%, P < .001). Both ACT regimens were safe and well tolerated.\Question: Are artemisinin-based combination therapies efficacious and safe for treatment of uncomplicated malaria in HIV-infected Ugandan children?

Ex Output:

Treatment of uncomplicated malaria with AL or DP was efficacious and safe in HIV-infected children taking ART. However, there was a high risk of recurrent parasitemia following AL treatment, which was significantly lower in children taking LPV/r-based ART compared with nevirapine-based ART.