ReviewFrontiers in immunology2026
Treatment of antibody-mediated rejection in heart transplantation: from empirical combination to multi-target precision intervention.
Review in Frontiers in immunology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Antibody-mediated rejection (AMR) is the primary immunological obstacle limiting long-term survival in heart transplant recipients. Driven by donor-specific antibodies (DSA), AMR damages graft microvasculature through multiple pathways, including complement activation, antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity, and sustained endothelial activation. It may present as acute hemodynamic collapse or progress insidiously in a subclinical manner, ultimately culminating in cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV) and graft failure. Over the past two decades, with successive updates to the ISHLT pathological diagnostic system, AMR has evolved from a vague clinical concept into a distinct entity defined by explicit histopathological and immunopathological criteria. However, therapeutic advances have markedly lagged behind the deepening understanding of its diagnosis. For a long time, the first-line regimen has consisted of plasma exchange combined with intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG). Nevertheless, its mechanism-clearance of circulating antibodies plus broad-spectrum immunomodulation-neither targets the source of antibody production (long-lived plasma cells) nor selectively blocks terminal effector pathways. Approximately 30-50% of refractory AMR cases respond poorly to this regimen. Over the past decade, agents targeting plasma cells (proteasome inhibitor bortezomib), the terminal complement component (C5 monoclonal antibody eculizumab), the IL-6 pathway (tocilizumab, clazakizumab), and the more recent anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody (daratumumab) have entered clinical practice, shifting AMR treatment from having no actionable targets to enabling multi-node intervention. This review delineates the rationale underlying this evolution: the treatment paradigm is transitioning from empirical combination therapy to biomarker-driven, multi-target precision intervention covering the entire sequence of "production-circulation-effector pathways." However, the field remains in a distinct transitional phase characterized by "weapons available but tactics lacking"-the vast majority of evidence derives from single-center, retrospective, small-sample observational studies, with no randomized controlled trial (RCT) specifically designed for AMR in heart transplantation. Consensus is lacking on how to select, combine, and sequence these agents based on individual immune phenotypes. Stratified therapy, dynamic biomarker monitoring, and rational multi-target combination will be the core directions for solving this challenge in the coming decade.
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.