ArticleTransplantation direct2019
Preformed Donor-specific Antibodies Against HLA Class II and Graft Outcomes in Deceased-donor Kidney Transplantation.
Article in Transplantation direct, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Association of donor-specific antibodies with adverse outcomes in solid organ transplantation: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 69 studies.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Pooled it
- Long-Term Chronic Lung Allograft Dysfunction-Free Survival Following Lung Transplant in the Presence of Donor-Specific Antibodies.Clinical transplantation · 2025Article
- Persistent versus resolved donor-specific antibodies predict 10-year antibody-mediated rejection and kidney transplant outcomes in Thailand.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Purification and Immunophenotypic Characterization of Human CD24Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMany kidney transplant centers in the United States report both HLA class I and II antibodies detected by sensitive solid-phase assays (SPAs) to United Network for Organ Sharing as unacceptable antigens, significantly reducing the compatible donor organ pool and prolonging waiting time for highly sensitized patients. However, the clinical relevance of all detected donor-specific antibodies (DSAs) by SPA is not unequivocal, because fluorescence intensity does not always accurately reflect antibody pathogenicity. Our center does not exclude patients from transplantation based on DSA class II.
methodsWe performed a retrospective analysis in 179 deceased-donor kidney transplant recipients with solely DSA class II before transplant and patients without DSA and compared graft survival, rejection, and clinical outcomes. Patient survival was also compared with matched controls on the waiting list.
resultsPatients transplanted with DSA class II showed a clear survival benefit compared with matched patients who remained on dialysis or were waitlisted on dialysis/transplanted at 5 years (100%, 34%, and 73%, respectively). After a mean follow-up of 5.5 years, there was no significant difference in death-censored graft survival between transplanted patients without DSA and those with preformed DSA class II (adjusted HR 1.10; 95% confidence interval, 0.41-2.97), although the incidence of rejection was higher in recipients with DSA class II (adjusted HR 5.84; 95% confidence interval, 2.58-13.23;
conclusionsWe conclude that for highly sensitized patients, deceased-donor kidney transplantation with DSA class II yields a survival benefit over prolonged waiting time on dialysis. Instead of listing DSA class II as unacceptable antigens, an individual approach with further immunologic risk assessment is recommended.
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.