ArticleInternational journal of organ transplantation medicine2015
Comparison of the Effect of Alemtuzumab versus Standard Immune Induction on Early Kidney Allograft Function in Shiraz Transplant Center.
Article in International journal of organ transplantation medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInduction therapy regimens classified as conventional immunosuppressive agents and lower doses of conventional agents combined with antibodies against T-cell antigens have been purposed to prevent acute rejection after renal transplantation. Various induction agents with different doses and durations have been suggested based on the risk profile of patients.
objectiveTo assess the acute rejection rate (total rate and based on the type of induction therapy regimen) during the first year after kidney transplantation, the type of acute rejection based on Banff classification and to determine the associations between rate of acute rejection, type of the rejection and induction therapy regimen.
methods249 kidney transplant candidates were divided into two groups-low-risk patients (n=208) who received conventional immunosuppressive agents, and high-risk patients (n=41) who received alemtuzumab-and followed for one year to detect acute rejection first diagnosed clinically, and confirmed by percutaneous kidney biopsy based on Banff criteria.
resultsThe total incidence of acute rejection was 19.6% (20.7% of the low-risk and 14.4% of the high-risk patients). The most prevalent types of the acute rejection in patients treated with conventional immunosuppressive agents and patients received alemtuzumab as induction therapy were grade IB and grade IA, respectively. The incidence of acute rejection among recipients received a kidney from a deceased donor was 20.6% and grade IA was the most prevalent type (6.9%) whereas the most prevalent grade of acute rejection in patients who received living donor grafts was IB (8.3%).
conclusionDespite the expected greater risk for acute rejection among high-risk patients, no significant difference was observed between low- and high-risk patients, which may be justified by the greater efficacy of alemtuzumab compared with standard triple induction therapy in reducing the rate of acute rejection.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26576260PMC4644567What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.