4.7 Article

Poor Long-Term Renal Allograft Survival in Patients with Chronic Antibody-Mediated Rejection, Irrespective of Treatment-A Single Center Retrospective Study

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
Volume 11, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm11010199

Keywords

kidney transplantation; chronic antibody-mediated rejection; transplant glomerulopathy; antihumoral therapy; graft survival

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study retrospectively investigated renal allograft function and long-term outcomes in patients with chronic antibody-mediated rejection (cAMR), and found that patients who received antihumoral therapy had more concomitant T-cell-mediated rejection and a higher decline in renal function, with lower graft survival rates.
The Banff 2017 report permits the diagnosis of pure chronic antibody-mediated rejection (cAMR) in absence of microcirculation inflammation. We retrospectively investigated renal allograft function and long-term outcomes of 67 patients with cAMR, and compared patients who received antihumoral therapy (cAMR-AHT, n = 21) with patients without treatment (cAMRwo, n = 46). At baseline, the cAMR-AHT group had more concomitant T-cell-mediated rejection (9/46 (19.2%) vs. 10/21 (47.6%); p = 0.04), a higher g-lesion score (0.4 +/- 0.5 versus 0.1 +/- 0.3; p = 0.01) and a higher median eGFR decline in the six months prior to biopsy (6.6 vs. 3.0 mL/min; p = 0.04). The median eGFR decline six months after biopsy was comparable (2.6 vs. 4.9 mL/min, p = 0.61) between both groups, and three-year graft survival after biopsy was statistically lower in the cAMR-AHT group (35.0% vs. 61.0%, p = 0.03). Patients who received AHT had more infections (0.38 vs. 0.20 infections/patient; p = 0.04). Currently, antihumoral therapy is more often administered to patients with cAMR and rapidly deteriorating renal function or concomitant TCMR. However, long-term graft outcomes remain poor, despite treatment.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available