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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7 ion and during bronchoscopic assessments for acute cellular rejection.

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

9 or problems after cardiac transplantation is acute cellular rejection.

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

11 4 is associated with histology suggestive of acute cellular rejection.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

23 /- 26 vs. 13.4 +/- 8.6, P=0.0007) and during acute cellular rejection (55 +/- 28 vs. 22.4 +/- 15, P=0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

47 Acute cellular rejection (ACR) is the most consistently

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

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

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

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

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

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

54 Acute cellular rejection (ACR) represents the major caus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

71 Acute cellular rejection affects more than 60% of childr

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

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

74 To explain acute cellular rejection after intestine transplantation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

83 Both acute cellular rejection and infection with genotype 1 a

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

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

86 Acute cellular rejection and multiple complications were

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

107 Acute cellular rejection, chronic allograft nephropathy,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

122 Acute cellular rejection in cardiac allografts is a majo

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

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

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

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

127 10B9.1A31 (T10B9) with OKT3 for treatment of acute cellular rejection in renal allograft recipients w

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

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

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

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

132 8S rRNA that is diagnostic and predictive of acute cellular rejection in the kidney allograft.

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

134 Acute cellular rejection is a major cause of morbidity a

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

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

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

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

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

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

141 Acute cellular rejection occurred in 42% of patients.

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

143 No acute cellular rejections occurred during a median follo

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

145 Acute cellular rejection occurs frequently during the fi

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

147 Acute cellular rejection of organ transplants is execute

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

159 Acute cellular rejection poses a challenge in ITx becaus

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

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

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

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

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

165 Acute cellular rejection, though mostly encountered duri

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

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

168 Acute cellular rejection was associated with lower total

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

170 Acute cellular rejection was not associated with DAD, an

171 The rate of acute cellular rejection was not significantly different

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

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

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

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

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

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

178 Rates of subsequent acute cellular rejection were recorded.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

191 95% CI 1.35-14.05, P=0.01) and treatment for acute cellular rejection within 90 days after transplant

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