4.6 Article

2013 Banff Criteria for Chronic Active Antibody-Mediated Rejection: Assessment in a Real-Life Setting

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF TRANSPLANTATION
Volume 16, Issue 5, Pages 1516-1525

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/ajt.13624

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. CIHR Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Significant changes in the criteria for chronic active antibody-mediated rejection (CAABMR) were made in the Banff 2013 classification. These modifications expanded the number of patients diagnosed with CAABMR, with undetermined clinical significance. We compared the 2007 and 2013 criteria for the composite end point of death-censored graft failure or doubling of serum creatinine in 123 patients meeting the criterion related to the morphologic evidence of chronic tissue injury. In all, 18% and 36% of the patients met the 2007 and 2013 criteria, respectively. For the criterion related to antibody interaction with endothelium, only 25% were positive based on the 2007 definition compared with 82% using the 2013 definition. Cox modeling revealed that a 2013 but not a 2007 diagnosis was associated with the composite end point (adjusted hazard ratio 2.5 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.2-5.2] vs. 1.6 [95% CI 0.7-3.8], respectively). The 2013 criterion based on both the C4d score and the glomerulitis plus peritubular capillaritis score (g+ptc) was more strongly associated with the end point than the 2007 criterion based only on C4d; however, when dissected by component, only the C4d component was significant. The association with clinical outcomes improved with the 2013 criteria. This is related to the new C4d threshold but not to the g+ptc 2 component. The authors compare the association between clinical outcomes and Banff 2007 versus 2013 criteria for chronic active antibody-mediated kidney rejection, with a particular focus on the C4d and g+ptc components. See also the minireview from Haas on page 1352.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available