ライフサイエンスコーパス: HLA matching

1 ith respect to recipient characteristics and HLA matching.

2 reduce CIT and DGF while achieving excellent HLA matching.

3 AZA and MMF treated patients with increased HLA matching.

4 ller than may be achievable through expanded HLA matching.

5 from significantly older donors with poorer HLA matching.

6 re greater than the advantages of optimizing HLA matching.

7 comparatively more severe than that of poor HLA matching.

8 donor-recipient relationship, and degree of HLA matching.

9 the clinical implications of donor-recipient HLA matching.

10 lability and less stringent requirements for HLA matching.

11 haplo donors based upon criteria other than HLA matching.

12 up (acute leukemia), allowing all degrees of HLA matching.

13 gely achieve the principal goal of improving HLA matching.

14 atus were as predictive of survival as donor HLA matching.

15 ld provide the maximum practical benefit for HLA matching.

16 gradual incremental benefit with respect to HLA matching.

17 ient survival is greater than that seen with HLA matching.

18 ors were recipients' siblings with excellent HLA matching.

19 nor serostatus in the era of high-resolution HLA matching.

20 antigenic epitopes without the necessity of HLA matching.

21 HLA-specific sensitization than conventional HLA matching.

22 considering removing the points awarded for HLA matching.

23 waiting times over human leukocyte antigen (HLA) matching.

24 Including HLA matching, 16 potential risk factors for heart transp

25 g of the HLA system and the requirements for HLA matching; 3) improved methods for acquisition, stora

26 age, diagnosis, donor source, and degree of HLA matching (71% vs 20%; P < .001).

27 The models incorporated the degree of HLA matching, adult-donor availability (i.e., ability to

28 ipient functional HLA matching as opposed to HLA matching alone, however, was important for tumor res

29 ated with a higher degree of donor-recipient HLA matching, although a difference in the frequency of

30 nt in kidney-transplant recipients with good HLA matching: among 326 recipients who received well-mat

31 Because better HLA matching and higher cell doses significantly decreas

32 ime period, in which patients had equivalent HLA matching and immunosuppression and a minimum of 5 ye

33 location alliance has improved the degree of HLA matching and increased the exchange of organs, witho

34 Our study would suggest that HLA matching and MMF therapy are additive factors in dec

35 Although LURD recipients have poorer HLA matching and older donors, their patient and graft s

36 of blood disorders, even with optimal donor HLA matching and use of prophylactic immunosuppressive a

37 of the criteria for human leukocyte antigen (HLA) matching and simulation evidence about the effectiv

38 association between human leukocyte antigen (HLA) matching and the development of GvHD after cadaveri

39 oup defined terms for HLA typing resolution, HLA matching, and a format for reporting HLA assignments

40 er donors offset the disadvantages of poorer HLA matching, and better HLA matching offsets the disadv

41 hod of allograft preservation pretransplant, HLA matching, and calculated KDRI.

42 or, panel-reactive antibody titer, extent of HLA matching, and cold-ischemia time), and post-transpla

43 erformance status, degree of donor-recipient HLA matching, and disease type and status at transplanta

44 including age, duration of first remission, HLA matching, and graft-versus-host (GVH) disease, were

45 resistance, and immunologic variables (ABO, HLA matching, and pretransplant anti-HLA antibodies).

46 ipients tended to be older, to have inferior HLA matching, and to have older donors than did the LRD

47 x, body mass index, human leukocyte antigen (HLA) matching, and hepatitis C virus serostatus.

48 conjunction with donor/recipient functional HLA matching as opposed to HLA matching alone, however,

49 Because of difficulties with HLA matching, Asian patients were significantly disadvan

50 ignant diseases should consider allele-level HLA matching at HLA-A, HLA-B, HLA-C, and HLA-DRB1.

51 s would be required to prove an advantage to HLA matching at P<0.05.

52 study was designed to determine how class I HLA matching at the triplet level affects kidney transpl

53 Human leukocyte antigen (HLA) matching at enrollment was 6/6 (n = 17), 5/6 (n = 5

54 ct of donor age and human leukocyte antigen (HLA) matching because these are variables that may help

55 HLA matching between the donor and recipient improves th

56 Schizophrenia and human leukocyte antigen (HLA) matching between couples or between mothers and off

57 (1). Elimination of suboptimal HLA matching by UNOS will probably not adversely affect

58 vere aplastic anemia subtype, recipient age, HLA matching, calendar year of transplant, and condition

59 Improved HLA matching can allow for renal transplantation in sens

60 use, conditioning regimens, ganciclovir use, HLA matching, circulating CMV antigenemia, absolute CD4+

61 ed kidneys and the effects of changes to the HLA matching criteria on graft survival and the distribu

62 To our knowledge, this is the first PGD with HLA matching, demonstrating feasibility of preselecting

63 Living-related transplantation and HLA matching do not appear to confer an advantage for gr

64 obviate the benefits of HLA matching, while HLA matching does not minimize the benefits of MMF on lo

65 ded underlying disease type, donor-recipient HLA matching, donor CMV serostatus, and age as a continu

66 the UK of exchanging kidneys on the basis of HLA matching, especially to recipients when there is a 0

67 The degree of blood group compatibility and HLA matching for a recipient population consisting of 65

68 The importance of HLA matching for cadaver-donor transplants is often igno

69 re associated with donor characteristics and HLA matching for every donor-candidate pair.

70 However, the effect of HLA matching for hepatic allografts remains poorly defin

71 The importance of HLA matching for renal transplantation outcomes has been

72 There were no differences between HLA matching groups in the frequency of coronary vasculo

73 HLA matching had a statistically significant impact on g

74 Identical HLA matching has enabled these individuals to be transpl

75 Human leukocyte antigen (HLA) matching has been de-emphasized in the allocation o

76 Since then, the stringency of criteria for HLA matching have been liberalized twice, from sharing o

77 cadaveric donor status, acute rejection, and HLA matching have been studied in detail.

78 vs 40%, P = .003) irrespective of degree of HLA matching (HLA 10/10 match: 75% vs 39%, P = .02) and

79 ed successfully even in the presence of poor HLA matching if an aggressive approach were taken with r

80 To try to simulate differences in HLA matching, immunosuppression regiments and cytomegalo

81 Better HLA matching improved short-term, but not long-term, gra

82 To determine the effect of HLA matching in cardiac and single-lung transplantation,

83 expression and are of likely importance for HLA matching in clinical transplantation.

84 ctive antibody ranging 70% to 80% to improve HLA matching in CP recipients.

85 The central role of HLA matching in HSCT has been established; however, reci

86 The role of HLA matching in liver transplantation remains uncertain,

87 To determine the relative impact of HLA matching in patients on MMF we undertook an analysis

88 actors have generally superseded the role of HLA matching in the allocation of donor hearts.

89 aseline parameters, save a greater degree of HLA matching in the KAT group.

90 These data support allele-level HLA matching in the selection of single UCB units.

91 e about the role of human leucocyte antigen (HLA) matching in kidney allograft survival.

92 ce less emphasis on human leukocyte antigen (HLA) matching in pediatric kidney transplant candidates

93 The importance of human leukocyte antigen (HLA) matching in renal transplantation is well recognize

94 The importance of human leukocyte antigen (HLA) matching in unrelated donor transplantation for non

95 These data demonstrate that HLA matching independently impacts survival in both hear

96 onounced in the context of self-recognition (HLA matching, indirect presentation).

97 HLA matching is an important component of the United Net

98 ld be distributed nationally, because better HLA matching is associated with improved short-term graf

99 for younger patients while recognizing that HLA matching is less important for older patients as ret

100 ts will undergo immune rejection even though HLA matching is not routinely performed and the use of i

101 We therefore examined the effects of HLA matching (low or high resolution or both) on engraft

102 further selected on the basis of older age, HLA-matching, low allosensitization, and low body mass i

103 portion of African-Americans, lower rates of HLA matching, lower levels of panel-reactive antibodies,

104 gimens containing MMF the relative effect of HLA matching may be altered.

105 es stronger and more specific, the impact of HLA matching may be vanishing.

106 Lack of HLA matching may impair the host's ability to mount an e

107 t function had significantly less degrees of HLA matching (mean 1.5) in comparison to patients with g

108 Our data do not support the concept that KIR-HLA matching might serve as a tool to improve long-term

109 list and resulted in significantly improved HLA matching, more than doubling the proportion of trans

110 High degree of donor-recipient HLA matching occurred infrequently: HLA-high (n=269; 6%)

111 gnificant difference between PCAR and CAR in HLA matching, occurrence of posttransplant acute tubular

112 HLA matching of the donor and recipient was based on typ

113 ients might be negatively impacted from poor HLA matching of their first kidney transplant when needi

114 HLA matching of vaccine, age, sex, race, and pathology d

115 dvantages of poorer HLA matching, and better HLA matching offsets the disadvantages of older donor ag

116 Although there might be a limited impact of HLA matching on acute rejection and graft survival, many

117 of this study was to determine the effect of HLA matching on deceased and LD renal allograft outcomes

118 o investigate the effects of donor-recipient HLA matching on graft survival in pediatric heart transp

119 We analyzed the impact of HLA matching on kidney graft survival in 3627 pediatric

120 etrospectively the effect of donor-recipient HLA matching on outcomes of single umbilical-cord blood

121 The effect of HLA matching on survival was studied using a Cox regress

122 We also investigated the effect of HLA matching on the risk of graft failure, using a Cox m

123 93 were analyzed to determine the effects of HLA matching on transplant mortality.

124 of donor-recipient human leukocyte antigen (HLA) matching on outcomes remains relatively unexplored

125 y four odorants was significantly related to HLA matching (P < 10(-4)), such that olfactory fingerpri

126 =.6) and degree of human leukocyte antigen (HLA) matching (P =.8) did not.

127 of these alternatives compared with present HLA-matching practices, and to assess the relative effec

128 pe, Karnofsky performance score, graft type, HLA matching, prior aplastic anemia therapy, race/ethnic

129 were not significantly disadvantaged by the HLA matching requirements of the program.

130 Patients receiving CTLs with closer HLA matching responded better at 6 months (P = .048).

131 Analysis of a subgroup of higher HLA matching showed consistent associations of the recip

132 hod, and stratified by site, donor-recipient HLA matching status, and donor's cytomegalovirus serosta

133 e is to evaluate superiority of the proposed HLA matching strategy in comparison to random graft assi

134 The degree of HLA matching, the cold ischemic time (CIT), the balance

135 atric patients achieved comparable levels of HLA matching to adult patients for the first time in the

136 beyond those of prenatal diagnosis, such as HLA matching to affected siblings to provide stem cell t

137 ary importance is sufficient donor-recipient HLA matching to ensure engraftment and acceptable rates

138 HLA matching was associated with improved LFS.

139 In Cox-regression analysis, HLA matching was independently associated with decreased

140 HLA matching was performed before transplantation by ser

141 f patients with recurrent rejection, whereas HLA matching was similar for all patients.

142 For those transplanted, HLA matching was superior for white patients: 34% versus

143 e incorporating 4 variables (age, race, sex, HLA matching) was created.

144 graft loss was observed in patients with no HLA matching whatsoever in comparison to patients with a

145 dies have reported diminishing importance of HLA matching, which have, in turn, been challenged by re

146 use of MMF does not obviate the benefits of HLA matching, while HLA matching does not minimize the b

147 tric donor-recipient pairs with allele-level HLA matching who received a single unit umbilical cord b

148 urvival; (2). Removing the consideration for HLA matching will result in fewer transplant opportuniti

149 This was irrespective of HLA matching with the donor or the intrinsically reduced