Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39430184›Full record

ArticleKidney international reports2024

Imlifidase in Highly Sensitized Kidney Transplant Recipients With a Positive Crossmatch Against a Deceased Donor.

Nassim Kamar, Dominique Bertrand, Sophie Caillard, Danièle Pievani, Marie Joelle Apithy, Nicolas Congy-Jolivet, Bertrand Chauveau, Fabienne Farce, Arnaud François, Audrey Delas and 5 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Kidney international reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Biologics in Kidney Transplantation: Why and How Should We Personalize Their Dosage?BioDrugs : clinical immunotherapeutics, biopharmaceuticals and gene therapy · 2026
    Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Reshaping the landscape of HLA desensitization through immune engineering.Transplant international : official journal of the European Society for Organ Transplantation · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors.

Nassim KamarDepartment of Nephrology and Organ Transplantation, Toulouse University Hospital, INSERM UMR 1291, Toulouse Institute for Infectious and Inflammatory Diseases (Infinity), Université Paul Sabatier, Toulouse, France.
Dominique BertrandDepartment of Nephrology, Dialysis and Kidney Transplantation, CHU Rouen, Rouen, France.
Sophie CaillardDepartment of Nephrology, Dialysis and Transplantation, Strasbourg University Hospital, Strasbourg, France.
Danièle PievaniDepartment of Nephrology and Renal Transplantation, Saint-Louis Hospital, AP-HP, Université Paris Cité, France CHU Paris-GH Saint-Louis, Paris, France.
Marie Joelle ApithyLaboratoire HLA, Grand Est Blood Center, Strasbourg, France.
Nicolas Congy-JolivetLaboratoire HLA, Toulouse University Hospital, Toulouse, France.
Bertrand ChauveauBordeaux University Hospital, Service de Pathologie, UMR-CNRS5164 Immunoconcept, University of Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France.
Fabienne FarceLaboratory of Immunology and Immunogenetics, Etablissement Français du sang, Rouen, France.
Arnaud FrançoisDepartment of Pathology, University of Rouen, Rouen, France.
Audrey DelasDepartment of Pathology, Toulouse University Hospital, Toulouse, France.
Jérôme OlagneDepartment of Pathology, Strasbourg University Hospital, Strasbourg, France.
Cédric UsureauLaboratory of Immunology and Immunogenetics, Hôpital Saint-Louis, Paris.
Jean-Luc TaupinLaboratory of Immunology and Immunogenetics, Hôpital Saint-Louis, Paris.
Gwenda Line GuidicelliLaboratory of Immunology and Immunogenetics, CHU de Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France.
Lionel CouziBordeaux University Hospital, Department of Nephrology, Transplantation, Dialysis and Apheresis, UMR-CNRS5164 Immunoconcept, University of Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Imlifidase is authorized for desensitization of highly sensitized adult kidney transplant candidates with a positive crossmatch (XM) against a deceased donor. Here, we report on the results for the first 9 patients transplanted in this context who had at least 3 months of follow-up. Methods: The eligibility criteria were as follows: calculated panel reactive antibodies (cPRA) ³ 98%, ³ 3 years on the waiting list, immunodominant donor-specific antibodies (DSAs) with mean fluorescence intensity (MFI) > 6000 (and < 5000 at 1:10 dilution) and a negative post-imlifidase complement-dependent cytotoxic XM (CDCXM). Results: All 9 patients had been on dialysis for an average of 123 ± 41 months, with cPRA at 99% ( Conclusion: These real-life data demonstrate that the use of imlifidase to desensitize highly sensitized patients can have an acceptable short-term efficacy and safety profile in selected patients.

Indexed as

highly sensitized patientsimlifidasekidney transplantationpositive crossmatch

Identifiers

PMID39430184
PMCPMC11489446

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.