ArticleTransfusion2025
One versus two: How much does it matter? A single-center retrospective study evaluating 1-day extracorporeal photopheresis schedule for treating patients with chronic lung allograft rejection.
Article in Transfusion, 2025. 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSeveral studies show that extracorporeal photopheresis (ECP) might benefit chronic lung allograft dysfunction (CLAD). A standard ECP cycle consists of two consecutive procedures regardless of the technique employed. STUDY DESIGN AND
methodsEvaluation of ECP cycle (from two to one procedure) modification due to pandemic restrictions in 25 patients with CLAD under chronic treatment by off-line ECP in the 6 months preceding cycle modification (one procedure processing 1.5 patients blood volumes [1.5 ECP]). Assessment of any significant change in lung function decline and the relationship with product characteristics compared to pre-ECP cycle modification.
resultsECP patients (23 obstructive and two mixed) were enrolled in 2020 during the COVID pandemic. Two hundred and thirty five ECP procedures followed the standard protocol and 121 the 1.5 ECP. There was little or no variation in lung function during the study period. The mean number of mononuclear cells (MNC) per kg administered over time was higher in the 1.5 ECP than in the standard ECP protocol (p = .014). No association was found between respiratory function and MNC infused. Persistent Forced Expiratory Volume in 1 s decline >10% was observed in two patients over the 6 months preceding 1.5 ECP (due to CLAD progression) and in three patients after 1.5 ECP initiation (one for CLAD progression, two for bronchial colonization).
conclusionOur study shows that respiratory function is maintained over time and is comparable between both ECP strategies in responders. The shift from two to one procedure per cycle may be reasonable in CLAD patients treated by off-line ECP.
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.