Search Results Heading

MBRLSearchResults

mbrl.module.common.modules.added.book.to.shelf
Title added to your shelf!
View what I already have on My Shelf.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to add the title to your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to remove the title from your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
    Done
    Filters
    Reset
  • Discipline
      Discipline
      Clear All
      Discipline
  • Is Peer Reviewed
      Is Peer Reviewed
      Clear All
      Is Peer Reviewed
  • Item Type
      Item Type
      Clear All
      Item Type
  • Subject
      Subject
      Clear All
      Subject
  • Year
      Year
      Clear All
      From:
      -
      To:
  • More Filters
      More Filters
      Clear All
      More Filters
      Source
    • Language
1,386 result(s) for "Graft Rejection - diagnosis"
Sort by:
Gene-Expression Profiling for Rejection Surveillance after Cardiac Transplantation
Patients were assigned to monitoring for rejection after cardiac transplantation either according to the standard practice of endomyocardial biopsies or with gene-expression profiling. At 19 months, the rates of rejection with hemodynamic compromise, graft dysfunction, death, or retransplantation were similar in the two groups, although the power of the trial was limited. Patients were assigned to monitoring for rejection after cardiac transplantation either according to the standard practice of endomyocardial biopsies or with gene-expression profiling. At 19 months, the rates of rejection were similar in the two groups. Advances in immunosuppression after cardiac transplantation have increased the rates of 1-year survival among recipients to nearly 90%. However, acute cellular rejection is still observed during the first year after transplantation (at a rate of approximately 30 to 40%) and occurs at a lower rate thereafter. 1 – 4 Rejection episodes are associated with an increased risk of allograft vasculopathy and loss. 5 – 7 Endomyocardial biopsy has remained the primary method of monitoring for rejection, despite the discomfort and the rare but potentially serious complications of the procedure. 8 – 12 Quantitative assessment of mononuclear-cell gene expression in peripheral-blood specimens has been explored as a . . .
An automated histological classification system for precision diagnostics of kidney allografts
For three decades, the international Banff classification has been the gold standard for kidney allograft rejection diagnosis, but this system has become complex over time with the integration of multimodal data and rules, leading to misclassifications that can have deleterious therapeutic consequences for patients. To improve diagnosis, we developed a decision-support system, based on an algorithm covering all classification rules and diagnostic scenarios, that automatically assigns kidney allograft diagnoses. We then tested its ability to reclassify rejection diagnoses for adult and pediatric kidney transplant recipients in three international multicentric cohorts and two large prospective clinical trials, including 4,409 biopsies from 3,054 patients (62.05% male and 37.95% female) followed in 20 transplant referral centers in Europe and North America. In the adult kidney transplant population, the Banff Automation System reclassified 83 out of 279 (29.75%) antibody-mediated rejection cases and 57 out of 105 (54.29%) T cell-mediated rejection cases, whereas 237 out of 3,239 (7.32%) biopsies diagnosed as non-rejection by pathologists were reclassified as rejection. In the pediatric population, the reclassification rates were 8 out of 26 (30.77%) for antibody-mediated rejection and 12 out of 39 (30.77%) for T cell-mediated rejection. Finally, we found that reclassification of the initial diagnoses by the Banff Automation System was associated with an improved risk stratification of long-term allograft outcomes. This study demonstrates the potential of an automated histological classification to improve transplant patient care by correcting diagnostic errors and standardizing allograft rejection diagnoses. ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT05306795 . A decision-support system that automates the Banff classification system for diagnosis of kidney allograft rejection leads to reclassification and correction of pathologists’ diagnoses and improves risk stratification of allograft outcomes.
A multicentre, patient- and assessor-blinded, non-inferiority, randomised and controlled phase II trial to compare standard and torque teno virus-guided immunosuppression in kidney transplant recipients in the first year after transplantation: TTVguideIT
Background Immunosuppression after kidney transplantation is mainly guided via plasma tacrolimus trough level, which cannot sufficiently predict allograft rejection and infection. The plasma load of the non-pathogenic and highly prevalent torque teno virus (TTV) is associated with the immunosuppression of its host. Non-interventional studies suggest the use of TTV load to predict allograft rejection and infection. The primary objective of the current trial is to demonstrate the safety, tolerability and preliminary efficacy of TTV-guided immunosuppression. Methods For this purpose, a randomised, controlled, interventional, two-arm, non-inferiority, patient- and assessor-blinded, investigator-driven phase II trial was designed. A total of 260 stable, low-immunological-risk adult recipients of a kidney graft with tacrolimus-based immunosuppression and TTV infection after month 3 post-transplantation will be recruited in 13 academic centres in six European countries. Subjects will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio (allocation concealment) to receive tacrolimus either guided by TTV load or according to the local centre standard for 9 months. The primary composite endpoint includes the occurrence of infections, biopsy-proven allograft rejection, graft loss, or death. The main secondary endpoints include estimated glomerular filtration rate, graft rejection detected by protocol biopsy at month 12 post-transplantation (including molecular microscopy), development of de novo donor-specific antibodies, health-related quality of life, and drug adherence. In parallel, a comprehensive biobank will be established including plasma, serum, urine and whole blood. The date of the first enrolment was August 2022 and the planned end is April 2025. Discussion The assessment of individual kidney transplant recipient immune function might enable clinicians to personalise immunosuppression, thereby reducing infection and rejection. Moreover, the trial might act as a proof of principle for TTV-guided immunosuppression and thus pave the way for broader clinical applications, including as guidance for immune modulators or disease-modifying agents. Trial registration EU CT-Number: 2022-500024-30-00
Efficacy of Integrated Risk Score Using Omics-Based Biomarkers for the Prediction of Acute Rejection in Kidney Transplantation: A Randomized Prospective Pilot Study
Acute rejection (AR) is critical for long-term graft survival in kidney transplant recipients (KTRs). This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of the integrated risk score of omics-based biomarkers in predicting AR in KTRs. This prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter, pilot study enrolled 40 patients who recently underwent high-immunologic-risk kidney transplantation (KT). Five omics biomarkers were measured, namely, blood mRNA (three-gene signature), urinary exosomal miRNA (three-gene signature), urinary mRNA (six-gene signature), and two urinary exosomal proteins (hemopexin and tetraspanin-1) at 2 weeks and every 4 weeks after KT for 1 year. An integrated risk score was generated by summing each biomarker up. The biomarker group was informed about the integrated risk scores and used to adjust immunosuppression, but not the control group. The outcomes were graft function and frequency of graft biopsy. Sixteen patients in the biomarker group and nineteen in the control group completed the study. The mean estimated glomerular filtration rate after KT did not differ between the groups. Graft biopsy was performed in two patients (12.5%) and nine (47.4%) in the biomarker and control groups, respectively, with the proportion being significantly lower in the biomarker group (p = 0.027). One patient (6.3%) in the biomarker group and two (10.5%) in the control group were diagnosed with AR, and the AR incidence did not differ between the groups. The tacrolimus trough level was significantly lower in the biomarker group than in the control group at 1 year after KT (p = 0.006). Integrated omics biomarker monitoring may help prevent unnecessary or high-complication-risk biopsy and enables tailored immunosuppression by predicting the risk of AR in KTRs.
Mycophenolate mofetil versus azathioprine in kidney transplant recipients on steroid-free, low-dose cyclosporine immunosuppression (ATHENA): A pragmatic randomized trial
We compared protection of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) and azathioprine (AZA) against acute cellular rejection (ACR) and chronic allograft nephropathy (CAN) in kidney transplant recipients on steroid-free, low-dose cyclosporine (CsA) microemulsion maintenance immunosuppression. ATHENA, a pragmatic, prospective, multicenter trial conducted by 6 Italian transplant centers, compared the outcomes of 233 consenting recipients of a first deceased donor kidney transplant induced with low-dose thymoglobulin and basiliximab and randomized to MMF (750 mg twice/day, n = 119) or AZA (75 to 125 mg/day, n = 114) added-on maintenance low-dose CsA microemulsion and 1-week steroid. In patients without acute clinical or subclinical rejections, CsA dose was progressively halved. Primary endpoint was biopsy-proven CAN. Analysis was by intention to treat. Participants were included between June 2007 and July 2012 and followed up to August 2016. Between-group donor and recipient characteristics, donor/recipient mismatches, and follow-up CsA blood levels were similar. During a median (interquartile range (IQR)) follow-up of 47.7 (44.2 to 48.9) months, 29 of 87 biopsied patients on MMF (33.3%) versus 31 of 88 on AZA (35.2%) developed CAN (hazard ratio (HR) [95% confidence interval (CI)]: 1.147 (0.691 to 1.904, p = 0.595). Twenty and 21 patients on MMF versus 34 and 14 on AZA had clinical [HR (95% CI): 0.58 (0.34 to 1.02); p = 0.057) or biopsy-proven subclinical [HR (95% CI): 1.49 (0.76 to 2.92); p = 0.249] ACR, respectively. Combined events [HR (95% CI): 0.85 (0.56 to 1.29); p = 0.438], patient and graft survival, delayed graft function (DGF), 3-year glomerular filtration rate (GFR) [53.8 (40.6;65.7) versus 49.8 (36.8;62.5) mL/min/1.73 m2, p = 0.50], and adverse events (AEs) were not significantly different between groups. Chronicity scores other than CAN predict long-term graft outcome. Study limitations include small sample size and unblinded design. In this study, we found that in deceased donor kidney transplant recipients on low-dose CsA and no steroids, MMF had no significant benefits over AZA. This finding suggests that AZA, due to its lower costs, could safely replace MMF in combination with minimized immunosuppression. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00494741; EUDRACT 2006-005604-14.
Effect of Influenza Vaccination Inducing Antibody Mediated Rejection in Solid Organ Transplant Recipients
Our goal was to study whether influenza vaccination induced antibody mediated rejection in a large cohort of solid organ transplant recipients (SOTR). Serum anti-Human Leukocyte Antigen (HLA) antibodies were determined using class I and class II antibody-coated latex beads (FlowPRA Screening Test) by flow cytometry. Anti-HLA antibody specificity was determined using the single-antigen bead flow cytometry (SAFC) assay and assignation of donor specific antibodies (DSA) was performed by virtual-crossmatch. We studied a cohort of 490 SOTR that received an influenza vaccination from 2009 to 2013: 110 (22.4%) received the pandemic adjuvanted vaccine, 59 (12%) within the first 6 months post-transplantation, 185 (37.7%) more than 6 months after transplantation and 136 (27.7%) received two vaccination doses. Overall, no differences of anti-HLA antibodies were found after immunization in patients that received the adjuvanted vaccine, within the first 6 months post-transplantation, or based on the type of organ transplanted. However, the second immunization dose increased the percentage of patients positive for anti-HLA class I significantly compared with patients with one dose (14.6% vs. 3.8%; = 0.003). Patients with pre-existing antibodies before vaccination (15.7% for anti-HLA class I and 15.9% for class II) did not increase reactivity after immunization. A group of 75 (14.4%) patients developed anti-HLA antibodies, however, only 5 (1.02%) of them were DSA, and none experienced allograft rejection. Only two (0.4%) patients were diagnosed with graft rejection with favorable outcomes and neither of them developed DSA. Our results suggest that influenza vaccination is not associated with graft rejection in this cohort of SOTR.
Use of the Tissue Common Rejection Module Score in Kidney Transplant as an Objective Measure of Allograft Inflammation
Long-term kidney transplant (KT) allograft outcomes have not improved as expected despite a better understanding of rejection and improved immunosuppression. Previous work had validated a computed rejection score, the tissue common rejection module (tCRM), measured by amplification-based assessment of 11 genes from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) biopsy specimens, which allows for quantitative, unbiased assessment of immune injury. We applied tCRM in a prospective trial of 124 KT recipients, and contrasted assessment by tCRM and histology reads from 2 independent pathologists on protocol and cause biopsies post-transplant. Four 10-μm shaves from FFPE biopsy specimens were used for RNA extraction and amplification by qPCR of the 11 tCRM genes, from which the tCRM score was calculated. Biopsy diagnoses of either acute rejection (AR) or borderline rejection (BL) were considered to have inflammation present, while stable biopsies had no inflammation. Of the 77 biopsies that were read by both pathologists, a total of 40 mismatches in the diagnosis were present. The median tCRM scores for AR, BL, and stable diagnoses were 4.87, 1.85, and 1.27, respectively, with an overall significant difference among all histologic groups (Kruskal-Wallis, p < 0.0001 ) . There were significant differences in tCRM scores between pathologists both finding inflammation vs. disagreement (p = 0.003), and both finding inflammation vs. both finding no inflammation (p < 0.001), along with overall significance between all scores (Kruskal-Wallis, p < 0.001). A logistic regression model predicting graft inflammation using various clinical predictor variables and tCRM revealed the tCRM score as the only significant predictor of graft inflammation (OR: 1.90, 95% CI: 1.40–2.68, p < 0.0001). Accurate, quantitative, and unbiased assessment of rejection of the clinical sample is critical. Given the discrepant diagnoses between pathologists on the same samples, individuals could utilize the tCRM score as a tiebreaker in unclear situations. We propose that the tCRM quantitative score can provide unbiased quantification of graft inflammation, and its rapid evaluation by PCR on the FFPE shave can become a critical adjunct to help drive clinical decision making and immunosuppression delivery.
Safety, tolerability, and efficacy of monoclonal CD38 antibody felzartamab in late antibody-mediated renal allograft rejection: study protocol for a phase 2 trial
Background Antibody-mediated rejection (ABMR) is a cardinal cause of renal allograft loss. This rejection type, which may occur at any time after transplantation, commonly presents as a continuum of microvascular inflammation (MVI) culminating in chronic tissue injury. While the clinical relevance of ABMR is well recognized, its treatment, particularly a long time after transplantation, has remained a big challenge. A promising strategy to counteract ABMR may be the use of CD38-directed treatment to deplete alloantibody-producing plasma cells (PC) and natural killer (NK) cells. Methods This investigator-initiated trial is planned as a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel-group, multi-center phase 2 trial designed to assess the safety and tolerability (primary endpoint), pharmacokinetics, immunogenicity, and efficacy of the fully human CD38 monoclonal antibody felzartamab (MOR202) in late ABMR. The trial will include 20 anti-HLA donor-specific antibody (DSA)-positive renal allograft recipients diagnosed with active or chronic active ABMR ≥ 180 days post-transplantation. Subjects will be randomized 1:1 to receive felzartamab (16 mg/kg per infusion) or placebo for a period of 6 months (intravenous administration on day 0, and after 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 12, 16, and 20 weeks). Two follow-up allograft biopsies will be performed at weeks 24 and 52. Secondary endpoints (preliminary assessment) will include morphologic and molecular rejection activity in renal biopsies, immunologic biomarkers in the blood and urine, and surrogate parameters predicting the progression to allograft failure (slope of renal function; iBOX prediction score). Discussion Based on the hypothesis that felzartamab is able to halt the progression of ABMR via targeting antibody-producing PC and NK cells, we believe that our trial could potentially provide the first proof of concept of a new treatment in ABMR based on a prospective randomized clinical trial. Trial registration EU Clinical Trials Register (EudraCT) 2021-000545-40 . Registered on 23 June 2021. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05021484 . Registered on 25 August 2021
Everolimus in de novo kidney transplant recipients participating in the Eurotransplant senior program: Results of a prospective randomized multicenter study (SENATOR)
Early conversion to everolimus was assessed in kidney transplant recipients participating in the Eurotransplant Senior Program (ESP), a population in whom data are lacking. The SENATOR multicenter study enrolled 207 kidney transplant recipients undergoing steroid withdrawal at week 2 post-transplant (ClinicalTrials.gov [NCT00956293]). At week 7, patients were randomized (1:2 ratio) to continue the previous calcineurin inhibitor (CNI)-based regimen with mycophenolic acid (MPA) and cyclosporine or switch to a CNI-free regimen with MPA, everolimus (5-10 ng/mL) and basiliximab at weeks 7 and 12, then followed for 18 weeks to month 6 post-transplant. The primary endpoint was estimated GFR (eGFR). At week 7, 77/207 (37.2%) patients were randomized (53 everolimus, 24 control). At month 6, eGFR was comparable: 36.5±10.8ml/min with everolimus versus 42.0±13.0ml/min in the control group (p = 0.784). Discontinuation due to adverse events occurred in 27.8% of everolimus-treated patients and 0.0% of control patients (p = 0005). Efficacy profiles showed no difference. In conclusion, eGFR, safety and efficacy outcomes at month 6 post-transplant showed no difference between groups. The everolimus group experienced a higher rate of discontinuation due to adverse events. However, the high rate of non-randomization is highly relevant, indicating this to be a somewhat unstable patient population regardless of treatment.
A Comparison of Two Types of Rabbit Antithymocyte Globulin Induction Therapy in Immunological High-Risk Kidney Recipients: A Prospective Randomized Control Study
Induction treatment with rabbit polyclonal antithymocyte globulins (ATGs) is frequent used in kidney transplant recipients with donorspecific HLA antibodies and shows acceptable outcomes. The two commonly used ATGs, Thymoglobulin and ATG-F have slightly different antigen profile and antibody concentrations. The two compounds have never been directly compared in a prospective trial in immunological high-risk recipients. Therefore we performed a prospective randomized controlled study comparing the two compounds in immunological high-risk kidney recipients in terms of safety and efficacy. Immunological high-risk kidney recipients, defined as the presence of HLA DSA but negative CDC-B and T-cell crossmatches were randomized 1:1 to receive ATG-F or Thymoglobulin. Maintenance immunosuppressive therapy consisted of tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil and steroids. The per-protocol analysis included 35 patients. There was no immediate infusion reaction observed with both compounds. No PTLD or malignancy occurred during the follow-up in both groups. The incidence of viral and bacterial infections was similar in both groups (p = 0.62). The cumulative incidence of clinical and subclinical antibody mediated allograft rejection as well as T-cell mediated allograft rejection during the first year between ATG-F and Thymoglobulin was similar (35% versus 19%; p = 0.30 and 11% versus 18%; 0.54 respectively). The two-year graft function was similar with a median eGFR of 56 ml/min/1.73m2 (range 21-128) (ATG-F-group) and 51 ml/min/1.73m2 (range 22-132) (Thymo-group) (p = 0.69). We found no significant differences between the compared study drugs for induction treatment in immunological high-risk patients regarding safety and efficacy during follow-up with good allograft function at 2 years after transplantation.