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.

Input: Consider Input: Context: B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) correlates with cardiac filling pressures and outcomes in patients with heart failure. In heart transplant recipients, we hypothesize that a within-individual change in BNP over time would be more helpful than absolute BNP in detecting International Society of Heart and Lung Transplantation (ISHLT) grade 2R or greater rejection.', 'N-terminal pro-BNP (NT-proBNP) levels were measured in 146 consecutive transplant recipients undergoing routine endomyocardial biopsies. In the cross-sectional analysis, multiple observations per individual were accounted for using generalized estimation equations.', "A cross-sectional analysis demonstrated a weak association between NT-proBNP levels and rejection, with an odds ratio (OR) of 1.01 for every 100-pg/mL increase in NT-proBNP (p = 0.02). However, with a doubling of an individual's NT-proBNP level, the OR for significant rejection was 2.9 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.2-7.0), the OR with a 5-fold increase was 9.1 (95% CI, 2.7-31.5), and the OR with a 10-fold increase was 27.7 (95% CI, 5.9-129). A 10-fold increase in NT-proBNP offered a negative predictive value of 95% for the diagnosis of rejection. The relationship between within-individual increases in NT-proBNP and rejection persisted after adjusting for a fall in ejection fraction and a rise pulmonary capillary wedge pressure, and was a stronger predictor than changes in these parameters.\Question: Does the change in B-type natriuretic peptide levels over time predict significant rejection in cardiac transplant recipients?

Output: There is a strong, graded relationship between the within-individual increase in NT-proBNP and the odds of significant rejection independent of hemodynamic parameters. These results suggest that the change in NT-proBNP rather than absolute BNP levels may offer a non-invasive approach to detect rejection.

Input: Consider Input: Context: To evaluate the efficacy of continuous low-level heat wrap therapy for the treatment of various sources of wrist pain including strain and sprain (SS), tendinosis (T), osteoarthritis (OA), and carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS).', 'Prospective, randomized, parallel, single-blind (investigator), placebo-controlled, multicenter clinical trial.', 'Two community-based research facilities.', 'Ninety-three patients (age range, 18-65 y) with wrist pain.', 'Subjects with moderate or greater wrist pain were randomized and stratified to 1 of the following treatments: efficacy evaluation (heat wrap, n=39; oral placebo, n=42) or blinding (oral acetaminophen, n=6; unheated wrap, n=6). Data were recorded over 3 days of treatment and 2 days of follow-up.', 'The primary comparison was between the heat wrap and the oral placebo group among SS/T/OA subjects for pain relief. Outcome measures included pain relief (0-5 scale), joint stiffness (101-point numeric rating scale), grip strength measured by dynamometry, and perceived pain and disability (Patient Rated Wrist Evaluation [PRWE]); subjects with CTS also completed the Symptom Severity Scale and Functional Status Scale.', 'Heat wrap therapy showed significant benefits in day 1 to 3 mean pain relief (P=.045) and increased day 3 grip strength (P=.02) versus oral placebo for the SS/T/OA group. However, joint stiffness and PRWE results were comparable between the 2 treatments. For the CTS group, heat wraps provided greater day 1 to 3/hour 0 to 8 mean pain relief (P=.001), day 1 to 3 mean joint stiffness reduction (P=.004), increased day 3 grip strength (P=.003), reduced PRWE scores (P=.0015), reduced symptom severity (P=.001), and improved functional status (P=.04). In addition, the heat wrap showed significant extended benefits through follow-up (day 5) in the CTS group.\Question: Is continuous low-level heat wrap therapy effective for treating wrist pain?

Output: Continuous low-level heat wrap therapy was efficacious for the treatment of common conditions causing wrist pain and impairment.

Input: Consider Input: Context: Rhinovirus (RV) infection in asthma induces varying degrees of airway inflammation (e.g. neutrophils), but the underlying mechanisms remain unclear.', 'The major goal was to determine the role of genetic variation [e.g. single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs)] of Toll-interacting protein (Tollip) in airway epithelial responses to RV in a type 2 cytokine milieu.', 'DNA from blood of asthmatic and normal subjects was genotyped for Tollip SNP rs5743899 AA, AG and GG genotypes. Human tracheobronchial epithelial (HTBE) cells from donors without lung disease were cultured to determine pro-inflammatory and antiviral responses to IL-13 and RV16. Tollip knockout and wild-type mice were challenged with house dust mite (HDM) and infected with RV1B to determine lung inflammation and antiviral response.', 'Asthmatic subjects carrying the AG or GG genotype (AG/GG) compared with the AA genotype demonstrated greater airflow limitation. HTBE cells with AG/GG expressed less Tollip. Upon IL-13 and RV16 treatment, cells with AG/GG (vs. AA) produced more IL-8 and expressed less antiviral genes, which was coupled with increased NF-B activity and decreased expression of LC3, a hallmark of the autophagic pathway. Tollip co-localized and interacted with LC3. Inhibition of autophagy decreased antiviral genes in IL-13- and RV16-treated cells. Upon HDM and RV1B, Tollip knockout (vs. wild-type) mice demonstrated higher levels of lung neutrophilic inflammation and viral load, but lower levels of antiviral gene expression.\Question: Does tollip SNP rs5743899 modulate human airway epithelial responses to rhinovirus infection?
Output: Our data suggest that Tollip SNP rs5743899 may predict varying airway response to RV infection in asthma.