Induction Versus Maintenance Immunosuppression After Intestinal Transplant: Determining Which Treatment Most Impacts Long-Term Patient And Graft Survival
- Autores
- Gentilini, María Virginia; Perez Illidge, Luis; Pedraza, Néstor; Nemirovsky, Sergio Ivan; Fernandez, María Florencia; Ramisch, Diego; Solar, Héctor; Rumbo, Martín; Rumbo, Carolina; Gondolesi, Gabriel Eduardo
- Año de publicación
- 2022
- Idioma
- inglés
- Tipo de recurso
- artículo
- Estado
- versión publicada
- Descripción
- Objectives: Immunosuppressive strategies for intestinal transplant have changed over time. However, specific intestinal transplant-oriented protocols and reports on long-term maintenance regimens are scarce. Our objective was to evaluate the impact of 2 different initial immunosuppressive protocols based on thymoglobulin (group A) and basiliximab (anti-interleukin 2 antibody) (group B) and of changes to maintenance immunosuppression over long-term follow-up in intestinal transplant recipients. Materials and Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of a prospectively established protocol for intestinal transplant immunosuppression, conducted between May 2006 and December 2020. We analyzed 51 intestinal transplant recipients, with 6 patients excluded because of early death or graft loss. Acute cellular rejection frequency and grade, number of acute cellular rejection episodes, time to the first acute cellular rejection episode, response to treatment, number of patients who progressed to chronic allograft rejection, kidney function, infections, incidence of posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder and graft-versus-host disease, and patient and graft survival were analyzed. Results: In the study groups, there were 87 acute cellular rejection episodes in 45 patients (33 in group A and 54 in group B). We found degree of acute cellular rejection to be mild in 45 patients, moderate in 18, and severe in 24 (not significant between groups). Our comparison of induction therapy (thymoglobulin [group A] vs interleukin 2 antibody [group B]) did not show any statistical difference during clinical followup. Long-term review showed that all patients were on tacrolimus. Five-year patient and graft survival rates were 62% and 45% for group A and 54% and 46% for group B, respectively (not significant). Conclusions: Long-term patient and graft outcomes reflected the use of an individualized follow-up with adjustments and changes in immunosuppressive medications according to the patient’s clinical course and complications rather than based on the induction immunosuppressive protocol used.
Fil: Gentilini, María Virginia. Universidad Favaloro; Argentina. Fundación Favaloro; Argentina
Fil: Perez Illidge, Luis. Fundación Favaloro; Argentina. Universidad Favaloro; Argentina
Fil: Pedraza, Néstor. Colombiana de Trasplantes; Colombia
Fil: Nemirovsky, Sergio Ivan. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Ciudad Universitaria. Instituto de Química Biológica de la Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales. Instituto de Química Biológica de la Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales; Argentina
Fil: Fernandez, María Florencia. Fundación Favaloro; Argentina
Fil: Ramisch, Diego. Fundación Favaloro; Argentina
Fil: Solar, Héctor. Fundación Favaloro; Argentina
Fil: Rumbo, Martín. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas, Universidad Nacional de la Plata; Argentina
Fil: Rumbo, Carolina. Fundación Favaloro; Argentina
Fil: Gondolesi, Gabriel Eduardo. Universidad Favaloro; Argentina. Fundación Favaloro; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina - Materia
-
IMMUNOLOGICAL RISK
IMMUNOSUPPRESSIVE PROTOCOL
INTESTINAL TRANSPLANT - Nivel de accesibilidad
- acceso abierto
- Condiciones de uso
- https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
- Repositorio
- Institución
- Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
- OAI Identificador
- oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/214563
Ver los metadatos del registro completo
id |
CONICETDig_c69109b5bc77e9510c7b9705f17cd508 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/214563 |
network_acronym_str |
CONICETDig |
repository_id_str |
3498 |
network_name_str |
CONICET Digital (CONICET) |
spelling |
Induction Versus Maintenance Immunosuppression After Intestinal Transplant: Determining Which Treatment Most Impacts Long-Term Patient And Graft SurvivalGentilini, María VirginiaPerez Illidge, LuisPedraza, NéstorNemirovsky, Sergio IvanFernandez, María FlorenciaRamisch, DiegoSolar, HéctorRumbo, MartínRumbo, CarolinaGondolesi, Gabriel EduardoIMMUNOLOGICAL RISKIMMUNOSUPPRESSIVE PROTOCOLINTESTINAL TRANSPLANThttps://purl.org/becyt/ford/3.2https://purl.org/becyt/ford/3Objectives: Immunosuppressive strategies for intestinal transplant have changed over time. However, specific intestinal transplant-oriented protocols and reports on long-term maintenance regimens are scarce. Our objective was to evaluate the impact of 2 different initial immunosuppressive protocols based on thymoglobulin (group A) and basiliximab (anti-interleukin 2 antibody) (group B) and of changes to maintenance immunosuppression over long-term follow-up in intestinal transplant recipients. Materials and Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of a prospectively established protocol for intestinal transplant immunosuppression, conducted between May 2006 and December 2020. We analyzed 51 intestinal transplant recipients, with 6 patients excluded because of early death or graft loss. Acute cellular rejection frequency and grade, number of acute cellular rejection episodes, time to the first acute cellular rejection episode, response to treatment, number of patients who progressed to chronic allograft rejection, kidney function, infections, incidence of posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder and graft-versus-host disease, and patient and graft survival were analyzed. Results: In the study groups, there were 87 acute cellular rejection episodes in 45 patients (33 in group A and 54 in group B). We found degree of acute cellular rejection to be mild in 45 patients, moderate in 18, and severe in 24 (not significant between groups). Our comparison of induction therapy (thymoglobulin [group A] vs interleukin 2 antibody [group B]) did not show any statistical difference during clinical followup. Long-term review showed that all patients were on tacrolimus. Five-year patient and graft survival rates were 62% and 45% for group A and 54% and 46% for group B, respectively (not significant). Conclusions: Long-term patient and graft outcomes reflected the use of an individualized follow-up with adjustments and changes in immunosuppressive medications according to the patient’s clinical course and complications rather than based on the induction immunosuppressive protocol used.Fil: Gentilini, María Virginia. Universidad Favaloro; Argentina. Fundación Favaloro; ArgentinaFil: Perez Illidge, Luis. Fundación Favaloro; Argentina. Universidad Favaloro; ArgentinaFil: Pedraza, Néstor. Colombiana de Trasplantes; ColombiaFil: Nemirovsky, Sergio Ivan. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Ciudad Universitaria. Instituto de Química Biológica de la Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales. Instituto de Química Biológica de la Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales; ArgentinaFil: Fernandez, María Florencia. Fundación Favaloro; ArgentinaFil: Ramisch, Diego. Fundación Favaloro; ArgentinaFil: Solar, Héctor. Fundación Favaloro; ArgentinaFil: Rumbo, Martín. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas, Universidad Nacional de la Plata; ArgentinaFil: Rumbo, Carolina. Fundación Favaloro; ArgentinaFil: Gondolesi, Gabriel Eduardo. Universidad Favaloro; Argentina. Fundación Favaloro; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; ArgentinaBaskent Univ2022-12info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501info:ar-repo/semantics/articuloapplication/pdfapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/11336/214563Gentilini, María Virginia; Perez Illidge, Luis; Pedraza, Néstor; Nemirovsky, Sergio Ivan; Fernandez, María Florencia; et al.; Induction Versus Maintenance Immunosuppression After Intestinal Transplant: Determining Which Treatment Most Impacts Long-Term Patient And Graft Survival; Baskent Univ; Experimental And Clinical Transplantation; 20; 12; 12-2022; 1105-11131304-0855CONICET DigitalCONICETenginfo:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/http://www.ectrx.org/detail/archive/2022/20/12/0/1105/0info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.6002/ECT.2022.0359info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesshttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas2025-09-29T10:10:59Zoai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/214563instacron:CONICETInstitucionalhttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/Organismo científico-tecnológicoNo correspondehttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/oai/requestdasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.arArgentinaNo correspondeNo correspondeNo correspondeopendoar:34982025-09-29 10:11:00.116CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicasfalse |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Induction Versus Maintenance Immunosuppression After Intestinal Transplant: Determining Which Treatment Most Impacts Long-Term Patient And Graft Survival |
title |
Induction Versus Maintenance Immunosuppression After Intestinal Transplant: Determining Which Treatment Most Impacts Long-Term Patient And Graft Survival |
spellingShingle |
Induction Versus Maintenance Immunosuppression After Intestinal Transplant: Determining Which Treatment Most Impacts Long-Term Patient And Graft Survival Gentilini, María Virginia IMMUNOLOGICAL RISK IMMUNOSUPPRESSIVE PROTOCOL INTESTINAL TRANSPLANT |
title_short |
Induction Versus Maintenance Immunosuppression After Intestinal Transplant: Determining Which Treatment Most Impacts Long-Term Patient And Graft Survival |
title_full |
Induction Versus Maintenance Immunosuppression After Intestinal Transplant: Determining Which Treatment Most Impacts Long-Term Patient And Graft Survival |
title_fullStr |
Induction Versus Maintenance Immunosuppression After Intestinal Transplant: Determining Which Treatment Most Impacts Long-Term Patient And Graft Survival |
title_full_unstemmed |
Induction Versus Maintenance Immunosuppression After Intestinal Transplant: Determining Which Treatment Most Impacts Long-Term Patient And Graft Survival |
title_sort |
Induction Versus Maintenance Immunosuppression After Intestinal Transplant: Determining Which Treatment Most Impacts Long-Term Patient And Graft Survival |
dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv |
Gentilini, María Virginia Perez Illidge, Luis Pedraza, Néstor Nemirovsky, Sergio Ivan Fernandez, María Florencia Ramisch, Diego Solar, Héctor Rumbo, Martín Rumbo, Carolina Gondolesi, Gabriel Eduardo |
author |
Gentilini, María Virginia |
author_facet |
Gentilini, María Virginia Perez Illidge, Luis Pedraza, Néstor Nemirovsky, Sergio Ivan Fernandez, María Florencia Ramisch, Diego Solar, Héctor Rumbo, Martín Rumbo, Carolina Gondolesi, Gabriel Eduardo |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Perez Illidge, Luis Pedraza, Néstor Nemirovsky, Sergio Ivan Fernandez, María Florencia Ramisch, Diego Solar, Héctor Rumbo, Martín Rumbo, Carolina Gondolesi, Gabriel Eduardo |
author2_role |
author author author author author author author author author |
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv |
IMMUNOLOGICAL RISK IMMUNOSUPPRESSIVE PROTOCOL INTESTINAL TRANSPLANT |
topic |
IMMUNOLOGICAL RISK IMMUNOSUPPRESSIVE PROTOCOL INTESTINAL TRANSPLANT |
purl_subject.fl_str_mv |
https://purl.org/becyt/ford/3.2 https://purl.org/becyt/ford/3 |
dc.description.none.fl_txt_mv |
Objectives: Immunosuppressive strategies for intestinal transplant have changed over time. However, specific intestinal transplant-oriented protocols and reports on long-term maintenance regimens are scarce. Our objective was to evaluate the impact of 2 different initial immunosuppressive protocols based on thymoglobulin (group A) and basiliximab (anti-interleukin 2 antibody) (group B) and of changes to maintenance immunosuppression over long-term follow-up in intestinal transplant recipients. Materials and Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of a prospectively established protocol for intestinal transplant immunosuppression, conducted between May 2006 and December 2020. We analyzed 51 intestinal transplant recipients, with 6 patients excluded because of early death or graft loss. Acute cellular rejection frequency and grade, number of acute cellular rejection episodes, time to the first acute cellular rejection episode, response to treatment, number of patients who progressed to chronic allograft rejection, kidney function, infections, incidence of posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder and graft-versus-host disease, and patient and graft survival were analyzed. Results: In the study groups, there were 87 acute cellular rejection episodes in 45 patients (33 in group A and 54 in group B). We found degree of acute cellular rejection to be mild in 45 patients, moderate in 18, and severe in 24 (not significant between groups). Our comparison of induction therapy (thymoglobulin [group A] vs interleukin 2 antibody [group B]) did not show any statistical difference during clinical followup. Long-term review showed that all patients were on tacrolimus. Five-year patient and graft survival rates were 62% and 45% for group A and 54% and 46% for group B, respectively (not significant). Conclusions: Long-term patient and graft outcomes reflected the use of an individualized follow-up with adjustments and changes in immunosuppressive medications according to the patient’s clinical course and complications rather than based on the induction immunosuppressive protocol used. Fil: Gentilini, María Virginia. Universidad Favaloro; Argentina. Fundación Favaloro; Argentina Fil: Perez Illidge, Luis. Fundación Favaloro; Argentina. Universidad Favaloro; Argentina Fil: Pedraza, Néstor. Colombiana de Trasplantes; Colombia Fil: Nemirovsky, Sergio Ivan. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Ciudad Universitaria. Instituto de Química Biológica de la Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales. Instituto de Química Biológica de la Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales; Argentina Fil: Fernandez, María Florencia. Fundación Favaloro; Argentina Fil: Ramisch, Diego. Fundación Favaloro; Argentina Fil: Solar, Héctor. Fundación Favaloro; Argentina Fil: Rumbo, Martín. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas, Universidad Nacional de la Plata; Argentina Fil: Rumbo, Carolina. Fundación Favaloro; Argentina Fil: Gondolesi, Gabriel Eduardo. Universidad Favaloro; Argentina. Fundación Favaloro; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina |
description |
Objectives: Immunosuppressive strategies for intestinal transplant have changed over time. However, specific intestinal transplant-oriented protocols and reports on long-term maintenance regimens are scarce. Our objective was to evaluate the impact of 2 different initial immunosuppressive protocols based on thymoglobulin (group A) and basiliximab (anti-interleukin 2 antibody) (group B) and of changes to maintenance immunosuppression over long-term follow-up in intestinal transplant recipients. Materials and Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of a prospectively established protocol for intestinal transplant immunosuppression, conducted between May 2006 and December 2020. We analyzed 51 intestinal transplant recipients, with 6 patients excluded because of early death or graft loss. Acute cellular rejection frequency and grade, number of acute cellular rejection episodes, time to the first acute cellular rejection episode, response to treatment, number of patients who progressed to chronic allograft rejection, kidney function, infections, incidence of posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder and graft-versus-host disease, and patient and graft survival were analyzed. Results: In the study groups, there were 87 acute cellular rejection episodes in 45 patients (33 in group A and 54 in group B). We found degree of acute cellular rejection to be mild in 45 patients, moderate in 18, and severe in 24 (not significant between groups). Our comparison of induction therapy (thymoglobulin [group A] vs interleukin 2 antibody [group B]) did not show any statistical difference during clinical followup. Long-term review showed that all patients were on tacrolimus. Five-year patient and graft survival rates were 62% and 45% for group A and 54% and 46% for group B, respectively (not significant). Conclusions: Long-term patient and graft outcomes reflected the use of an individualized follow-up with adjustments and changes in immunosuppressive medications according to the patient’s clinical course and complications rather than based on the induction immunosuppressive protocol used. |
publishDate |
2022 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2022-12 |
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501 info:ar-repo/semantics/articulo |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv |
http://hdl.handle.net/11336/214563 Gentilini, María Virginia; Perez Illidge, Luis; Pedraza, Néstor; Nemirovsky, Sergio Ivan; Fernandez, María Florencia; et al.; Induction Versus Maintenance Immunosuppression After Intestinal Transplant: Determining Which Treatment Most Impacts Long-Term Patient And Graft Survival; Baskent Univ; Experimental And Clinical Transplantation; 20; 12; 12-2022; 1105-1113 1304-0855 CONICET Digital CONICET |
url |
http://hdl.handle.net/11336/214563 |
identifier_str_mv |
Gentilini, María Virginia; Perez Illidge, Luis; Pedraza, Néstor; Nemirovsky, Sergio Ivan; Fernandez, María Florencia; et al.; Induction Versus Maintenance Immunosuppression After Intestinal Transplant: Determining Which Treatment Most Impacts Long-Term Patient And Graft Survival; Baskent Univ; Experimental And Clinical Transplantation; 20; 12; 12-2022; 1105-1113 1304-0855 CONICET Digital CONICET |
dc.language.none.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/http://www.ectrx.org/detail/archive/2022/20/12/0/1105/0 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.6002/ECT.2022.0359 |
dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/ |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
rights_invalid_str_mv |
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/ |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf application/pdf |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Baskent Univ |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Baskent Univ |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET) instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas |
reponame_str |
CONICET Digital (CONICET) |
collection |
CONICET Digital (CONICET) |
instname_str |
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
dasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.ar |
_version_ |
1844614004901675008 |
score |
13.070432 |