ArticleKidney international reports2026
Sensitization and Deceased-Donor Kidney Transplant Access in France.
Article in Kidney international reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Highly sensitized kidney transplant candidates: integrating acceptable mismatch, desensitization, imlifidase, and emerging immune-cell targeting strategies.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Highly sensitized kidney transplant candidates have reduced access to deceased-donor kidney transplantation (DDKT) and worse waitlist outcomes. In France, allocation relies on sensitization-based prioritization through the acceptable-antigen pathway driven by the Methods: We conducted a retrospective multicenter cohort study including 14,485 adult kidney transplant candidates listed between 2011 and 2021. Sensitization was measured using TGI (0-100) and reported using calculated panel reactive antibody (cPRA)-labeled strata for international readability. Access to DDKT was the primary outcome, with living-donor transplantation, death, and delisting treated as competing events. The secondary outcome was waitlist attrition (death or delisting). Fine-Gray models adjusted for key demographic, clinical, and immunologic variables were truncated at 10 years. Results: Access to DDKT declined progressively with increasing sensitization and fell sharply from cPRA ≥ 96%. Compared with cPRA 0%, the adjusted subdistribution hazard ratio (SHR) for DDKT was 0.781 at 96%, 0.658 at 97%, 0.701 at 98%, 0.353 at 99%, and 0.082 at 100%. Conversely, the risk of waitlist attrition increased from cPRA ≥ 97% (sHR: 1.793), reaching 2.713 at 100%. Candidates with cPRA of 85% to 95% retained preserved access, consistent with the intended effect of the acceptable-antigen pathway. Conclusion: In the French TGI-based allocation system, cPRA ≥ 96% marks a threshold of impaired access to DDKT, whereas cPRA ≥ 97% identifies excess waitlist attrition. These findings define an ultrasensitized subgroup insufficiently served by current prioritization and support refined allocation strategies within the 96% to 100% range.
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.