ライフサイエンスコーパス: acute cellular rejection

1 mall bowel transplantation (SBTx) experience acute cellular rejection.

2 re antibody-mediated rejection and five were acute cellular rejection.

3 year correlated inversely with the degree of acute cellular rejection.

4 D20+ lymphocytes were highly associated with acute cellular rejection.

5 ship to the cumulative number of episodes of acute cellular rejection.

6 and more difficult to treat, than classical acute cellular rejection.

7 (VEGF) as a potential surveillance marker of acute cellular rejection.

8 gnificantly correlated with the incidence of acute cellular rejection.

9 ic T-cell subsets, such as Th1 cells, during acute cellular rejection.

10 nts in both groups showed biopsy evidence of acute cellular rejection.

11 or problems after cardiac transplantation is acute cellular rejection.

12 e ICC transplantation is sufficient to cause acute cellular rejection.

13 4 is associated with histology suggestive of acute cellular rejection.

14 l transplants, there was minimal evidence of acute cellular rejection.

15 in the incidence of at least one episode of acute cellular rejection.

16 s 1 patient whose dose was reduced developed acute cellular rejection.

17 ection; the other two had moderate to severe acute cellular rejection.

18 ell-mediated-rejection (TCMR), also known as acute cellular rejection.

19 dence of severe primary graft dysfunction or acute cellular rejection.

20 eased during acute renal ischemic injury and acute cellular rejection.

21 ventional CD4 (Tconv) and CD8 T cells during acute cellular rejection.

22 ion and during bronchoscopic assessments for acute cellular rejection.

23 s recognized by recipient T cells, promoting acute cellular rejection.

24 Thirty (16%) of 190 men experienced acute cellular rejection.

25 was complicated by (1) recurrent episodes of acute cellular rejection, (2) neutropenia necessitating

26 iated rejection (25% vs. 12.5%, P=0.008) and acute cellular rejection (23% vs. 14%, P=0.02) was great

27 /- 26 vs. 13.4 +/- 8.6, P=0.0007) and during acute cellular rejection (55 +/- 28 vs. 22.4 +/- 15, P=0

28 s II antibodies are strongly correlated with acute cellular rejection, a high incidence of recurrent

29 Recurrent episodes of acute cellular rejection, a primarily T cell-mediated re

30 in association with clinically insignificant acute cellular rejection (A0, A1) in 75% of cases.

31 Patients with acute cellular rejection, ABMR, and DGF discriminate fro

32 d acute antibody-mediated rejection (ABMR) + acute cellular rejection (ACR) [mixed rejection] in HIV

33 Serum citrulline is a marker for acute cellular rejection (ACR) after intestinal transpla

34 have a role in predicting the occurrence of acute cellular rejection (ACR) after liver transplantati

35 Rationale: Acute cellular rejection (ACR) after lung transplant is

36 ection cases were as follows: AHR only, 30%; acute cellular rejection (ACR) and AHR, 45%; ACR (CCTT t

37 intragraft CD20+ B cells are associated with acute cellular rejection (ACR) and allograft loss.

38 Overall freedom from acute cellular rejection (ACR) and antibody-mediated rej

39 mofetil (MMF) and azathioprine (AZA) against acute cellular rejection (ACR) and chronic allograft nep

40 lantation are felt to be more susceptible to acute cellular rejection (ACR) and chronic rejection (CR

41 inflammatory and fibrotic lesions other than acute cellular rejection (ACR) and lymphocytic bronchiol

42 cases to test the prognostic value of first acute cellular rejection (ACR) and severe (grade of) ACR

43 The incidence of cumulative acute cellular rejection (ACR) at 1, 2, 3, and 4 years w

44 tifying those with subclinical or borderline acute cellular rejection (ACR) at 3 months (ACR-3) post-

45 th after the first year posttransplant, with acute cellular rejection (ACR) being a major risk factor

46 is unclear if the severity or the timing of acute cellular rejection (ACR) defined by Banff classifi

47 iomarkers that can accurately detect cardiac acute cellular rejection (ACR) early.

48 also evaluated the incidence and severity of acute cellular rejection (ACR) episodes among these pati

49 d surgical data; all spirometry evaluations; acute cellular rejection (ACR) events; and survival data

50 's relevance in PT and additional markers of acute cellular rejection (ACR) for PT.

51 Patients with acute cellular rejection (ACR) had reduced P-gp activity

52 ls were evaluated for their association with acute cellular rejection (ACR) in 43 adult renal transpl

53 n postulated to play a role in infection and acute cellular rejection (ACR) in animal models.

54 Acute cellular rejection (ACR) in heart transplant (HTx)

55 re remains a critical need for biomarkers of acute cellular rejection (ACR) in heart transplantation.

56 itrulline has been advocated as a marker for acute cellular rejection (ACR) in intestinal transplanta

57 Acute cellular rejection (ACR) in lung transplant recipi

58 There is a critical need for biomarkers of acute cellular rejection (ACR) in organ transplantation.

59 on between acute humoral rejection (AHR) and acute cellular rejection (ACR) in renal allografts is th

60 mixed antibody-mediated rejection (AMR) and acute cellular rejection (ACR) in six transplant recipie

61 Alemtuzumab is effective in preventing acute cellular rejection (ACR) in SPK recipients and has

62 Acute cellular rejection (ACR) is a frequent complicatio

63 Acute cellular rejection (ACR) is a major early complica

64 Acute cellular rejection (ACR) is a significant challeng

65 Rationale: Acute cellular rejection (ACR) is common during the init

66 Acute cellular rejection (ACR) is common in the first ye

67 Acute cellular rejection (ACR) is the most consistently

68 with monoclonal antibodies for prevention of acute cellular rejection (ACR) may avoid many of the adv

69 was observed in 3 (0.03%) patients, whereas acute cellular rejection (ACR) occurred in 31 (3%) patie

70 We examined the impact of acute cellular rejection (ACR) of intestinal allografts

71 In cases of biopsy-proven acute cellular rejection (ACR) or cyclosporine (CyA) tox

72 y or late antibody-mediated rejection (AMR), acute cellular rejection (ACR) or mixed AR (MAR).

73 l transplantation (ITx), infection (INF) and acute cellular rejection (ACR) remain major causes of pa

74 In intestinal transplantation, acute cellular rejection (ACR) remains a significant cha

75 Acute cellular rejection (ACR) represents the major caus

76 tion (SBT) is plagued by a high incidence of acute cellular rejection (ACR) that is frequently intrac

77 four healthy subjects and nine patients with acute cellular rejection (ACR) were also studied.

78 rs for antibody-mediated rejection (AMR) and acute cellular rejection (ACR) were developed, with disc

79 plant) antibody-mediated rejection (AMR) and acute cellular rejection (ACR) were similar among the th

80 Rationale: The association of acute cellular rejection (ACR) with chronic lung allogra

81 The ability to noninvasively diagnose acute cellular rejection (ACR) with high specificity and

82 reduce the incidence of symptomatic NAS and acute cellular rejection (ACR) within 6 months, but long

83 ildren (n=35), who experienced biopsy-proven acute cellular rejection (ACR) within 60 days of DC moni

84 Acute cellular rejection (ACR), an alloimmune response i

85 age 52 y), 74 had no rejection, 18 developed acute cellular rejection (ACR), and 12 developed antibod

86 ents (NF-MACE), any treated rejection (ATR), acute cellular rejection (ACR), and antibody-mediated re

87 d to assess for donor-derived cell-free DNA, acute cellular rejection (ACR), antibody-mediated reject

88 Development of GIF+"i" was related to prior acute cellular rejection (ACR), BK nephropathy (PVAN), i

89 etween the circulating levels of 25(OH)D and acute cellular rejection (ACR), cytomegalovirus (CMV) di

90 y graft dysfunction (PGD) and development of acute cellular rejection (ACR), de novo donor-specific a

91 ause kidney biopsy specimens with early AMR, acute cellular rejection (ACR), or acute tubular necrosi

92 lung transplant recipients with and without acute cellular rejection (ACR).

93 V) has not consistently been associated with acute cellular rejection (ACR).

94 non-anastomotic biliary strictures (NAS) and acute cellular rejection (ACR).

95 d 11/49 (22.4%) patients were diagnosed with acute cellular rejection (ACR).

96 IG) with allograft survival in patients with acute cellular rejection (ACR).

97 There were nine episodes of acute cellular rejection (ACR).

98 encoding sarcomeric proteins were altered in acute cellular rejection (ACR).

99 ent risk factor for subsequent bacteremia or acute cellular rejection (ACR).

100 pearance in assessing histologic evidence of acute cellular rejection (ACR).

101 ) identified RNA transcripts associated with acute cellular rejection (ACR); however, these lacked ce

102 novo autoimmune hepatitis (DAIH) and/or late acute cellular rejection (ACR); stable (n = 25) on maint

103 patients in group I demonstrated concomitant acute cellular rejection (ACR+).

104 Causes of graft failure were acute cellular rejection (ACR, n=4), liver failure (n=2)

105 re collected to define AR, its 2 phenotypes (acute cellular rejection [ACR] and antibody-mediated rej

106 pe of RR (antibody-mediated rejection [AMR], acute cellular rejection [ACR], mixed [ACR/AMR]).

107 In intestinal transplantation, acute cellular rejection(ACR) remains a significant chal

108 ical techniques, outcomes, and biopsy-proven acute cellular rejections (ACRs) in 46 adult recipients

109 No acute cellular rejection, acute antibody-mediated reject

110 Acute cellular rejection affects more than 60% of childr

111 zumab was efficacious as prophylaxis against acute cellular rejection after cardiac transplantation.

112 Monocyte-derived macrophages prime acute cellular rejection after intestine transplantation

113 To explain acute cellular rejection after intestine transplantation

114 T-cytotoxic memory cells (CD154+TcM) predict acute cellular rejection after liver transplantation (LT

115 cific CD154+T-cytotoxic memory cells predict acute cellular rejection after LTx or ITx in children.

116 al-biopsy sample is essential for diagnosing acute cellular rejection after lung transplantation (LT)

117 each group, 3 patients (4.8%) presented with acute cellular rejection after the first year and only 1

118 plantation comorbidity on the development of acute cellular rejection after transplantation and on pa

119 ment was confounded by changes of concurrent acute cellular rejection and antibody-mediated rejection

120 ce of TEMRA T cells, which may contribute to acute cellular rejection and antibody-mediated rejection

121 mphocytic crossmatch, increased incidence of acute cellular rejection and graft loss have been report

122 bution of CMV gB genotypes and the impact on acute cellular rejection and graft/patient survival afte

123 Both acute cellular rejection and infection with genotype 1 a

124 s to reflect chronic inflammation related to acute cellular rejection and is an independent predictor

125 n the development of allograft vasculopathy, acute cellular rejection and long-term outcome.

126 Acute cellular rejection and multiple complications were

127 genic mechanisms, and therapeutic targets in acute cellular rejection and other kidney diseases with

128 There was significant correlation between acute cellular rejection and the presence of the -308A p

129 ether B-cell isotype switching could predict acute cellular rejection and the subsequent development

130 scriminated between biopsy specimens showing acute cellular rejection and those not showing rejection

131 lograft biopsies with histologic evidence of acute cellular rejection and three renal allograft biops

132 sive therapy, three patients (13%) developed acute cellular rejection and were treated successfully w

133 The association of BALT with high-grade acute cellular rejection and with the development of bro

134 associated with antibody mediated rejection, acute cellular rejection, and bronchiolitis obliterans s

135 In contrast, patients who experienced acute cellular rejection, and especially antibody-mediat

136 schemic cholangiopathy, acute kidney injury, acute cellular rejection, and graft and patient survival

137 es (DSA), antibody-mediated rejection (AMR), acute cellular rejection, and graft status.

138 ltivariable analyses, Pseudomonas isolation, acute cellular rejection, and lymphocytic bronchiolitis

139 n of Pseudomonas from respiratory specimens, acute cellular rejection, and lymphocytic bronchiolitis

140 ransplantation is associated with downstream acute cellular rejection, antibody-mediated rejection (A

141 allograft biopsies from patients undergoing acute cellular rejection, antibody-mediated rejection (A

142 in 6-month survivors as cumulative burden of acute cellular rejection, antibody-mediated rejection, c

143 rve any differences in the incidence of DSA, acute cellular rejection, antibody-mediated rejection, C

144 ld provide timely and sensitive detection of acute cellular rejection (AR), reducing the incidence of

145 T10B9 provides treatment for renal allograft acute cellular rejection as effective as that of OKT3 wi

146 The cumulative incidences of acute cellular rejection at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months wer

147 left ventricle, PGD of the right ventricle, acute cellular rejection at least grade 2R, or graft fai

148 rmation is independent of the probability of acute cellular rejection at the time of testing that is

149 rmation is independent of the probability of acute cellular rejection at the time of testing that is

150 Five patients had acute cellular rejections at the time of non-HLAabs deve

151 postoperative course was complicated by two acute cellular rejection (Banff Ia) episodes that were s

152 he possibility for prevention and therapy of acute cellular rejection based on targeting of specific

153 graft survival was 100%, respectively, with acute cellular rejection being reported in 6.4% (n = 2)

154 atched urine supernatants best discriminated acute cellular rejection biopsy specimens from specimens

155 Hemodynamic compromise, in the absence of acute cellular rejection, called biopsy-negative rejecti

156 ced by recipient T cells during the onset of acute cellular rejection, can serve as a non-invasive bi

157 idated composite ordinal end point including acute cellular rejection, CAV, and CKD.

158 Thymectomized swine developed acute cellular rejection characterized by a T cell (CD25

159 Acute cellular rejection, chronic allograft nephropathy,

160 CH was not associated with acute cellular rejection, CMV infection or malignancies.

161 We evaluated the association between CH and acute cellular rejection, CMV infection, cardiac allogra

162 sequentially transplanted kidneys developed acute cellular rejection compared with only two (25%) of

163 Acute cellular rejection developed in 78% of the CLT gra

164 th ASP progression had a higher incidence of acute cellular rejection during the first year (63.6% vs

165 ost-transplantation reduces the frequency of acute cellular rejection episodes and lowers the risk of

166 ostatus, posttransplant body mass index, and acute cellular rejection episodes as time-dependent cova

167 pulmonary process or because of undiagnosed acute cellular rejection episodes.

168 More cases of acute cellular rejection for which treatment was indicat

169 The signature distinguished acute cellular rejection from acute antibody-mediated re

170 Acute cellular rejection grades did not influence the MV

171 s been no large evaluation of the ISHLT 2004 acute cellular rejection grading scheme for heart graft

172 gen donor-specific antibodies (P=0.004), and acute cellular rejection >=2R (P=0.028).

173 Patients with acute cellular rejection had a shorter recurrence-free s

174 tients who developed features of subclinical acute cellular rejection had allografts with tubular cel

175 f CyA) produced severe renal dysfunction and acute cellular rejection histologically.

176 Allograft biopsies demonstrate a lack of acute cellular rejection; however, alloantibody-mediated

177 the biopsies demonstrated varying degrees of acute cellular rejection in 48 of 61 specimens (79%).

178 ere was a similar frequency of biopsy-proven acute cellular rejection in alcohol users and abstainers

179 g antibodies (P<0.001) and was diagnostic of acute cellular rejection in both groups.

180 gic examination revealed similar patterns of acute cellular rejection in both mouse groups.

181 ng have been correlated with the presence of acute cellular rejection in both single center studies i

182 Acute cellular rejection in cardiac allografts is a majo

183 ne expression in relation to the presence of acute cellular rejection in endomyocardial biopsies from

184 In this study, we characterized episodes of acute cellular rejection in ITx recipients using a nonin

185 s appears to be diagnostic and prognostic of acute cellular rejection in kidney allografts.

186 ight into the molecular processes underlying acute cellular rejection in liver transplantation and he

187 e that AAV-PD-L1 gene delivery can attenuate acute cellular rejection in lung transplants, offering a

188 10B9.1A31 (T10B9) with OKT3 for treatment of acute cellular rejection in renal allograft recipients w

189 -T-cell agent for induction and treatment of acute cellular rejection in solid organ transplantation.

190 remained below the diagnostic threshold for acute cellular rejection in the group of patients with n

191 sive means of diagnosing and prognosticating acute cellular rejection in the human kidney allograft,

192 Noninvasive diagnosis and prognostication of acute cellular rejection in the kidney allograft may hel

193 8S rRNA that is diagnostic and predictive of acute cellular rejection in the kidney allograft.

194 sy independently established the presence of acute cellular rejection in these heart transplant recip

195 es does not reveal the pathogenic process of acute cellular rejection in transplanted tissue.

196 Acute cellular rejection is a key contributor to chronic

197 Acute cellular rejection is a major cause of morbidity a

198 Acute cellular rejection is common after lung transplant

199 The rate of acute cellular rejection is high in this small series, a

200 ry vasculopathy, although a low incidence of acute cellular rejection is noted, suggesting the presen

201 Although it is well established that acute cellular rejection is primarily a CD4 + and CD8 +

202 recipients remains less well-understood than acute cellular rejection, is associated with worse outco

203 The incidence of acute cellular rejection (kidney transplantation) and of

204 ggest that pro-inflammatory events including acute cellular rejection, lymphocytic bronchiolitis, and

205 arked depletion of Foxp3 cells and triggered acute cellular rejection, manifested by a sudden increas

206 ions underwent enterectomy because of severe acute cellular rejection (n = 3) or chronic rejection (n

207 Acute cellular rejection occurred in 28% at 1 month and

208 Acute cellular rejection occurred in 42% of patients.

209 Acute cellular rejection occurred in 9%; it was related

210 No acute cellular rejections occurred during a median follo

211 LAR was defined as histologically proven acute cellular rejection occurring more than 90 days aft

212 Acute cellular rejection occurs frequently during the fi

213 emonstrate that IFNgamma is not required for acute cellular rejection of fully allogeneic murine hear

214 Acute cellular rejection of organ transplants is execute

215 e before islet cell transplantation leads to acute cellular rejection of porcine ICCs.

216 of amylase and lipase at the time of severe acute cellular rejection of the intestinal graft, likely

217 er cases include splanchnic vein thrombosis, acute cellular rejection of the liver, jaundice, hepatom

218 There was only one episode of acute cellular rejection of the liver.

219 Moderate acute cellular rejection of the skin of the graft develo

220 yte diversity and macrophage function during acute cellular rejection of transplanted hearts in mice.

221 In this model, the lung allograft developed acute cellular rejection on day 15 which, by day 30 afte

222 ted with graft dysfunction in the absence of acute cellular rejection or AMR were found to have eleva

223 While we did not observe post viral acute cellular rejection or antibody-mediated rejection,

224 er "quiescent" histopathology (i.e., without acute cellular rejection or infection) (NORMAL POST) or

225 ple regimen appears safe, has a low risk for acute cellular rejection or other adverse effects, and i

226 nor's smoking history does not predispose to acute cellular rejection or prevent the establishment of

227 a significant difference in DSA development, acute cellular rejection, or infection between the two g

228 out association with clinical events such as acute cellular rejection, organ failure, or infection of

229 ymphocytes was significantly associated with acute cellular rejection (P = 0.0001) and not associated

230 al treatment (P=0.297) and the occurrence of acute cellular rejection (P=0.365).

231 though no impact could be observed regarding acute cellular rejection (P=0.940), T allele was signifi

232 mpare donor-reactive T cell frequencies with acute cellular rejection pathology.

233 Acute cellular rejection poses a challenge in ITx becaus

234 The mean acute cellular rejection rate was 0.94+/-1.1 in the bone

235 children, most of whom also experience early acute cellular rejection (rejectors).

236 Whether they will also prevent subsequent acute cellular rejection remains unknown.

237 Acute cellular rejection seen in four (14%) of 28 patien

238 nce (inflammatory grade and fibrosis stage), acute cellular rejection, SVR, retransplantation, and de

239 Acute cellular rejection, though mostly encountered duri

240 ph nodes, are necessary for progression from acute cellular rejection to allograft fibrosis in this m

241 , a need to better understand the process of acute cellular rejection to help develop improved progno

242 relationships between CD20+ lymphocytes and acute cellular rejection versus antibody-mediated reject

243 ies include immunosuppressive drug toxicity, acute cellular rejection, viral hepatitis, ischemic inju

244 Acute cellular rejection was associated with lower total

245 al rejection occurred in one patient whereas acute cellular rejection was diagnosed in four patients.

246 Acute cellular rejection was not associated with DAD, an

247 The rate of acute cellular rejection was not significantly different

248 Histologic evidence of concomitant acute cellular rejection was noted in 12 cases; the othe

249 Biopsy-proven acute cellular rejection was noted in 5 recipients, whic

250 Biopsy-proven acute cellular rejection was present in 15 subjects (rej

251 Although a higher incidence of acute cellular rejection was seen in HS patients receivi

252 Fibrosis and individual parameters of acute cellular rejection were graded according to a semi

253 Children with (n = 18) or without (n = 25) acute cellular rejection were included in the analysis (

254 Trends for lower freedom from acute cellular rejection were observed for recipients wi

255 Rates of subsequent acute cellular rejection were recorded.

256 Renal allograft biopsies (n = 111) with acute cellular rejection were scored for endarteritis, m

257 imen-matched urine samples, predicted future acute cellular rejection when applied to pristine sample

258 VEGF levels were significantly higher during acute cellular rejection when compared with the non-reje

259 Lung Tregs increase in the setting of acute cellular rejection, whereas declining levels of BA

260 cipients developed severe, steroid-resistant acute cellular rejection, whereas FR104-treated animals

261 n group II animals underwent a self-limiting acute cellular rejection, which resolved completely and

262 Three recipients developed acute cellular rejection, which was borderline in one ca

263 as 0.93, and the signature was diagnostic of acute cellular rejection with a specificity of 84% and a

264 mory cells (r=-0.56, P=0.031), which predict acute cellular rejection with high sensitivity.

265 istopathological analysis revealed classical acute cellular rejection with moderate to severe diffuse

266 NA signature is diagnostic and prognostic of acute cellular rejection with very high accuracy.

267 ildren (n=16), who experienced biopsy-proven acute cellular rejection within 60 days of SBTx.

268 fined as those who experienced biopsy-proven acute cellular rejection within 60 days of the assay.

269 95% CI 1.35-14.05, P=0.01) and treatment for acute cellular rejection within 90 days after transplant

270 confirmed > or =3 cells/hpf correlating with acute cellular rejection, yielding sensitivity 90% and s