4.6 Article

Sensitization in transplantation: Assessment of risk (STAR) 2019 Working Group Meeting Report

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF TRANSPLANTATION
卷 20, 期 10, 页码 2652-2668

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ajt.15937

关键词

alloantibody; antigen biology; clinical research; practice; histocompatibility; lymphocyte biology; major histocompatibility complex (MHC); rejection; antibody-mediated (ABMR)

资金

  1. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
  2. American Society of Histocompatibility and Immunogenetics
  3. American Society for Transplantation
  4. Paul Terasaki Research Fund
  5. American Society of Transplantation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The purpose of the STAR 2019 Working Group was to build on findings from the initial STAR report to further clarify the expectations, limitations, perceptions, and utility of alloimmune assays that are currently in use or in development for risk assessment in the setting of organ transplantation. The goal was to determine the precision and clinical feasibility/utility of such assays in evaluating both memory and primary alloimmune risks. The process included a critical review of biologically driven, state-of-the-art, clinical diagnostics literature by experts in the field and an open public forum in a face-to-face meeting to promote broader engagement of the American Society of Transplantation and American Society of Histocompatibility and Immunogenetics membership. This report summarizes the literature review and the workshop discussions. Specifically, it highlights (1) available assays to evaluate the attributes of HLA antibodies and their utility both as clinical diagnostics and as research tools to evaluate the effector mechanisms driving rejection; (2) potential assays to assess the presence of alloimmune T and B cell memory; and (3) progress in the development of HLA molecular mismatch computational scores as a potential prognostic biomarker for primary alloimmunity and its application in research trial design.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据