Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 957

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 38 of the 38 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Phase III Study of Belatacept‐based Immunosuppression Regimens versus Cyclosporine in Renal Transplant Recipients (BENEFIT Study)

Open access
Vincenti, F., Charpentier, B., Vanrenterghem, Y., Rostaing, L., Bresnahan, B., Darji, P., Massari, P., Mondragon‐Ramirez, G.A, Agarwal, M., Di Russo, G., Lin, C.‐S., Garg, P., Larsen, C.P.·2010·American Journal of Transplantation

Abstract

Belatacept, a costimulation blocker, may preserve renal function and improve long-term outcomes versus calcineurin inhibitors in kidney transplantation. This Phase III study (Belatacept Evaluation of Nephroprotection and Efficacy as First-line Immunosuppression Trial) assessed a more intensive (MI) or less intensive (LI) regimen of belatacept versus cyclosporine in adults receiving a kidney transplant from living or standard criteria deceased donors. The co-primary endpoints at 12 months were patient/graft survival, a composite renal impairment endpoint (percent with a measured glomerular filtration rate (mGFR) <60 mL/min/1.73 m(2) at Month 12 or a decrease in mGFR > or =10 mL/min/1.73 m(2) Month 3-Month 12) and the incidence of acute rejection. At Month 12, both belatacept regimens had similar patient/graft survival versus cyclosporine (MI: 95%, LI: 97% and cyclosporine: 93%), and were associated with superior renal function as measured by the composite renal impairment endpoint (MI: 55%; LI: 54% and cyclosporine: 78%; p < or = 0.001 MI or LI versus cyclosporine) and by the mGFR (65, 63 and 50 mL/min for MI, LI and cyclosporine; p < or = 0.001 MI or LI versus cyclosporine). Belatacept patients experienced a higher incidence (MI: 22%, LI: 17% and cyclosporine: 7%) and grade of acute rejection episodes. Safety was generally similar between groups, but posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder was more common in the belatacept groups. Belatacept was associated with superior renal function and similar patient/graft survival versus cyclosporine at 1 year posttransplant, despite a higher rate of early acute 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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2009.03005.x

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cites

Show all 38 references

Cited by

See all 957

Metadata

Authors
Vincenti, F., Charpentier, B., Vanrenterghem, Y., Rostaing, L., Bresnahan, B., Darji, P., Massari, P., Mondragon‐Ramirez, G. A., Agarwal, M., Di Russo, G., Lin, C. ‐., Garg, P., & Larsen, C. P.
Venue
American Journal of Transplantation
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2010-03
Volume
10
Issue
3
Pages
535-546
ISSN
1600-6135 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2077684987
Cited by
957
References
38
FWCI
66.23
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 Phase III Study of Belatacept‐based Immunosuppression Regimens versus Cyclosporine in Renal Transplant Recipients (BENEFIT Study). https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1600-6143.2009.03005.x
The paper
Vincenti, F., Charpentier, B., Vanrenterghem, Y., Rostaing, L., Bresnahan, B., Darji, P., Massari, P., Mondragon‐Ramirez, G. A., Agarwal, M., Di Russo, G., Lin, C. ‐., Garg, P., & Larsen, C. P. (2010). A Phase III Study of Belatacept‐based Immunosuppression Regimens versus Cyclosporine in Renal Transplant Recipients (BENEFIT Study). American Journal of Transplantation. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-6143.2009.03005.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.