Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39501813›Full record

ArticleHLA2024

Combined Molecular Mismatch Approaches to Predict Immunological Events Within the First Year After Renal Transplantation.

Cäcilia Jäger, Matthias Niemann, Gideon Hönger, Caroline Wehmeier, Helmut Hopfer, Thomas Menter, Patrizia Amico, Michael Dickenmann, Stefan Schaub

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in HLA, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
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

9 authors.

Cäcilia JägerClinic for Transplantation Immunology and Nephrology, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Matthias NiemannPIRCHE AG, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-3514-9812
Gideon HöngerClinic for Transplantation Immunology and Nephrology, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0003-1661-2661
Caroline WehmeierClinic for Transplantation Immunology and Nephrology, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Helmut HopferPathology, Institute of Medical Genetics and Pathology, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Thomas MenterPathology, Institute of Medical Genetics and Pathology, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Patrizia AmicoClinic for Transplantation Immunology and Nephrology, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Michael DickenmannClinic for Transplantation Immunology and Nephrology, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Stefan SchaubClinic for Transplantation Immunology and Nephrology, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-9170-1341

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Several molecular mismatch assessment approaches exist, but data on their combined use are limited. In this study, we aimed to define distinct risk groups for rejection based on the combination of three molecular mismatch assessment approaches (i.e., eplet mismatch count, the number of highly immunogenic eplets and PIRCHE-II score) in 439 consecutive immunological standard risk transplantations. For each molecular mismatch assessment approach, ROC analyses were used to define cut-offs for prediction of (sub) clinical rejection according to Banff 2019 classification within the first year post-transplant as a reference. If all three scores were below the cut-off, the patient was assigned to the low-risk group (19% of patients); if all three scores were above the cut-off, the patient was assigned to the high-risk group (21% of patients). The one-year incidence of (sub) clinical rejection was 12% in the low-risk group and 33% in the high-risk group (p = 0.003). Internal validation of the assigned risk groups for prediction of other outcomes revealed a high consistency: clinical rejection (6% vs. 24%; p = 0.004), ATG-treated rejection (1% vs. 16%; p < 0.001) and development of de novo HLA-DSA at 5 years post-transplant (6% vs. 25%; p = 0.003). The molecular mismatch risk group was an independent predictor for (sub) clinical rejection (high-risk vs. low-risk: hazard ratio 3.11 [95%-CI 1.50-6.45]; p = 0.002). We conclude that combining molecular mismatch approaches allows us to distinguish low- and high-risk groups among standard renal allograft recipients. Independent validation in other patient populations and different ethnicities is required.

Indexed as

Graft RejectionHistocompatibility TestingHLA AntigensKidney TransplantationAdultFemaleGraft SurvivalHumansMaleMiddle AgedRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsROC CurveHLA AntigensHLA epletsimmunological risk stratificationMolecular mismatch assessmentPIRCHE IIrenal allograft rejection

Identifiers

PMID39501813
PMCPMC11586251

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.