The DOI matches its Crossref record.
A Comparison of Plasmapheresis Versus High-Dose IVIG Desensitization in Renal Allograft Recipients with High Levels of Donor Specific Alloantibody
Open accessAbstract
Several protocols allow for the successful transplantation of sensitized renal allograft recipients, yet no one best method has emerged. The aim of the current study was to compare the efficacy of high-dose IVIG with two different plasmapheresis (PP)-based regimens in kidney transplant recipients with high levels of donor specific alloantibody (DSA) defined as a positive T-cell cytotoxicity crossmatch. With the primary goal of achieving a negative crossmatch, we employed three protocols sequentially between April 2000 and May 2005: (i) PP, low-dose IVIG, anti-CD20 antibody (n = 32); (ii) high-dose IVIG (n = 13); and (iii) PP, low-dose IVIG, anti-CD20 antibody and pre-transplant Thymoglobulin combined with post-transplant DSA monitoring (n = 16). IVIG decreased DSA activity in all treated patient, yet only 38% (5/13) achieved a negative crossmatch. In contrast, a negative crossmatch was achieved in 84% in PP group and 88% in the PP/monitoring group (p < 0.01 vs. IVIG). Even with a negative crossmatch, the rejection rates were 80% (IVIG), 37% (PP) and 29% (PP/monitoring), respectively, (p < 0.05 IVIG vs. PP). We conclude that multiple PP treatments leads to more reproducible desensitization and lower humoral rejection rates than a single high-dose of IVIG, but that no regimen was completely effective in preventing humoral rejection.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Tait, B. D., Süsal, C., Gebel, H. M., Nickerson, P. W., Zachary, A. A., Claas, F. H. J., Reed, E. F., Bray, R. A., Campbell, P., Chapman, J. R., et al. (2013) · Transplantation · doi:10.1097/tp.0b013e31827a19cc · Cited by 787
Szczepiorkowski, Z. M., Winters, J. L., Bandarenko, N., Kim, H. C., Linenberger, M. L., Marques, M. B., Sarode, R., Schwartz, J., Weinstein, R., & Shaz, B. H. (2010) · Journal of Clinical Apheresis · doi:10.1002/jca.20240 · Cited by 508
Self-citationLorant, T., Bengtsson, M., Eich, T., Eriksson, B.-M., Winstedt, L., Järnum, S., Stenberg, Y., Robertson, A.-K., Mosén, K., Björck, L., et al. (2018) · American Journal of Transplantation · doi:10.1111/ajt.14733 · Cited by 108
The mechanisms of rejection in solid organ transplantation
Cozzi, E., Colpo, A., & De Silvestro, G. (2017) · Transfusion and Apheresis Science · doi:10.1016/j.transci.2017.07.005 · Cited by 57
Targeting the Neonatal Fc Receptor in Autoimmune Diseases: Pipeline and Progress
Gjølberg, T. T., Mester, S., Calamera, G., Telstad, J. S., Sandlie, I., & Andersen, J. T. (2025) · BioDrugs · doi:10.1007/s40259-025-00708-2 · Cited by 20
Metadata
- Authors
- Stegall, M. D., Gloor, J., Winters, J. L., Moore, S. B., & DeGoey, S.
- Venue
- American Journal of Transplantation
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2006-02
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 346-351
- ISSN
- 1600-6135 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2060214204
- Cited by
- 428
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 23.99
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Comparison of Plasmapheresis Versus High-Dose IVIG Desensitization in Renal Allograft Recipients with High Levels of Donor Specific Alloantibody. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1600-6143.2005.01178.x
- The paper
- Stegall, M. D., Gloor, J., Winters, J. L., Moore, S. B., & DeGoey, S. (2006). A Comparison of Plasmapheresis Versus High-Dose IVIG Desensitization in Renal Allograft Recipients with High Levels of Donor Specific Alloantibody. American Journal of Transplantation. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-6143.2005.01178.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.