Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42807268›Full record

ArticleTransplant international : official journal of the European Society for Organ Transplantation2026

Abatacept as maintenance therapy in kidney transplantation: a retrospective comparative study.

Charlotte Uro-Coste, Inès Ramos, Aurélien Tiple, Marine Freist, Claire Chatron, Alba Atenza, Jimmy Garraud, Clarisse Grèze, Carole Philipponnet, Paul Rouzaire and 2 more

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Transplant international : official journal of the European Society for Organ Transplantation, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

12 authors.

Charlotte Uro-CosteUniversité Clermont Auvergne, Clermont-Ferrand, France.
Inès RamosDépartement de Biostatistiques, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Clermont-Ferrand, Clermont-Ferrand, France.
Aurélien TipleDépartement de néphrologie, centre hospitalier de Vichy, Vichy, France.
Marine FreistDépartement de Néphrologie, Centre Hospitalier du Puy-en-Velay, Le puyenvelay, France.
Claire ChatronPharmacie Hospitaliére, Centre Hospitlier Universitaire de Clermont-Ferrand, Clermont-Ferrand, France.
Alba AtenzaDépartement de Néphrologie, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Clermont-Ferrand, Clermont-Ferrand, France.
Jimmy GarraudDépartement de Néphrologie, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Clermont-Ferrand, Clermont-Ferrand, France.
Clarisse GrèzeDépartement de Néphrologie, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Clermont-Ferrand, Clermont-Ferrand, France.
Carole PhilipponnetDépartement de Néphrologie, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Clermont-Ferrand, Clermont-Ferrand, France.
Paul RouzaireUniversité Clermont Auvergne, Clermont-Ferrand, France.
Anne-Elisabeth HengUniversité Clermont Auvergne, Clermont-Ferrand, France.
Cyril GarrousteUniversité Clermont Auvergne, Clermont-Ferrand, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Belatacept use is increasinging in kidney transplantation, as it has demonstrated improved graft survival compared with calcineurin inhibitors. However, its intravenous administration and recurrent supply shortages may limit its use. Abatacept has a similar mechanism of action. Although widely used in rheumatology, its use in kidney transplantation remains poorly documented. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of abatacept and belatacept as maintenance immunosuppressive therapy after kidney transplantation. We conducted a retrospective study including adult kidney transplant recipients who were switched to abatacept or belatacept between 2017 and 2023. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of rejection within the first year after conversion. A total of 74 patients were included: 21 in the abatacept group and 53 in the belatacept group. No significant difference was observed in rejection rates at 1 year (respectivily 9.5% vs. 9.4%; p > 0.999). Rates of viral and opportunistic infections were also comparable. These findings, which warrant confirmation in larger studies, suggest that abatacept is associated with acceptable safety outcomes relative to belatacept. Abatacept may thererefore be considered a potential alternative in selected situations, including drug shortage, limited venous access, pregnancy or the need for greater treatment autonomy.

Indexed as

AbataceptGraft RejectionImmunosuppressive AgentsKidney TransplantationAdultFemaleGraft SurvivalHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeAbataceptImmunosuppressive Agentsabataceptbelataceptcalcineurin inhibitor toxicityimmunosuppressive therapykidney transplantation

Identifiers

PMID42807268
PMCPMC13616798

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.