ReviewInternational journal of nephrology and renovascular disease2016
Belatacept for the prophylaxis of organ rejection in kidney transplant patients: an evidence-based review of its place in therapy.
Review in International journal of nephrology and renovascular disease, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Profiling Localized Immunomodulation and Drug Biodistribution within a Subcutaneous Vascularized Niche for Cell Transplantation.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBelatacept is a novel immunosuppressive therapy designed to improve clinical outcomes associated with kidney transplant recipients while minimizing use of calcineurin inhibitors (CNIs).
methodsWe searched for clinical trials related to administration of belatacept to kidney transplant patients compared to various immunosuppression regimens, as well as for studies that utilized data from belatacept trials to validate new surrogate measures. The purpose of this review is to consolidate the published evidence of belatacept's effectiveness and safety in renal transplant recipients to better elucidate its place in clinical practice.
resultsAnalysis of the results from the Belatacept Evaluation of Nephroprotection and Effi-cacy as First-Line Immunosuppressive Trial (BENEFIT) study, a de novo trial that compared cyclosporine (CsA)-based therapy to belatacept-based therapy in standard criteria donors, found a significant difference in mean estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of 13-15 mL/min/1.73 m(2) and 23-27 mL/min/1.73 m(2) at 1 year and 7 years, respectively. The BENEFIT-EXT study was similarly designed with the exception that it included extended criteria donors. Renal function improved significantly for the more intensive belatacept group in all years of the BENEFIT-EXT study; however, it was not significant in the less intensive group until 5 years after transplant. Belatacept regimens resulted in lower blood pressure, cholesterol levels, and incidence of new-onset diabetes after transplant compared to CsA-based regimens. Results from conversion of CNIs to belatacept therapy, dual therapy of belatacept with sirolimus, and belatacept with corticosteroid avoidance therapy are also included in this article.
conclusionThe evidence reviewed in this article suggests that belatacept is an effective alternative in kidney transplant recipients. Compared to CNI-based therapy, belatacept-based therapy results in superior renal function and similar rates of allograft survival. In terms of safety, belatacept was shown to have lower incidence of hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes; however, incidence of posttransplantation lymphoproliferative disorder and the cost of belatacept may hinder use of this medication.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.