The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Comparison of Combination Plasmapheresis/IVIg/ Anti-CD20 Versus High-Dose IVIg in the Treatment of Antibody-Mediated Rejection
Open accessAbstract
Different strategies appear to improve the success in treatment of antibody-mediated rejection (AMR), although no one best method has yet emerged. The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy of the combination of Plasmapheresis/intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg)/anti-CD20-based regimes versus high-dose IVIg alone in the treatment of AMR. Group A (12 patients) was treated with high-dose IVIg between January 2000 and December 2003; group B (12 patients) was treated by Plasmapheresis/IVIg/anti-CD20 between January 2004 and December 2005. Graft survival at 36 months was 91.7% in group B versus 50% in group A (p = 0.02). Donor-specific human leukocyte antigens (DSA) levels detected by Luminex single antigen (Luminex SA) and ELISA, 3 months postrejection are significantly lower in group B than in group A: DSA ELISA class 2 score 6-8 (p = 0.02), DSA mean intensity of fluorescence (MFI) max (p = 0.009) and DSA mean MFI (p = 0.0004). The persistence of elevated DSA levels posttreatment is more frequent in patients with graft loss as compared to those with preserved renal function: score 6-8 on ELISA (p = 0.04); mean MFI (p = 0.00009) and MFImax (p = 0.018). We conclude that: (1) high dose IVIg alone is inferior to Plasmapheresis/IVIg/anti-CD20 as therapy for AMR and (2)DSA postrejection can be quantified using solid phase assays, showing that 3 months after AMR, DSA levels are higher in patients with graft loss.
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
Complement-Binding Anti-HLA Antibodies and Kidney-Allograft Survival
Loupy, A., Lefaucheur, C., Vernerey, D., Prugger, C., van Huyen, J.-P. D., Mooney, N., Suberbielle, C., Frémeaux-Bacchi, V., Méjean, A., Desgrandchamps, F., et al. (2013) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1302506 · Cited by 852
Self-citationTait, 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
Self-citationSzczepiorkowski, 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
Baker, R. J., Mark, P. B., Patel, R. K., Stevens, K. K., & Palmer, N. (2017) · BMC Nephrology · doi:10.1186/s12882-017-0553-2 · Cited by 211
Effector Mechanisms of Rejection
Moreau, A., Varey, E., Anegon, I., & Cuturi, M.-C. (2013) · Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Medicine · doi:10.1101/cshperspect.a015461 · Cited by 189
Metadata
- Authors
- Lefaucheur, C., Nochy, D., Andrade, J., Verine, J., Gautreau, C., Charron, D., Hill, G. S., Glotz, D., & Suberbielle-Boissel, C.
- Venue
- American Journal of Transplantation
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2009-05
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1099-1107
- ISSN
- 1600-6135 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2061888899
- Cited by
- 291
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 12.92
- 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: Comparison of Combination Plasmapheresis/IVIg/ Anti-CD20 Versus High-Dose IVIg in the Treatment of Antibody-Mediated Rejection. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1600-6143.2009.02591.x
- The paper
- Lefaucheur, C., Nochy, D., Andrade, J., Verine, J., Gautreau, C., Charron, D., Hill, G. S., Glotz, D., & Suberbielle-Boissel, C. (2009). Comparison of Combination Plasmapheresis/IVIg/ Anti-CD20 Versus High-Dose IVIg in the Treatment of Antibody-Mediated Rejection. American Journal of Transplantation. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-6143.2009.02591.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.
