ライフサイエンスコーパス: panel-reactive antibody

1 and higher human leukocyte antigen class II panel reactive antibody.

2 llocation was evaluated through a calculated panel reactive antibody.

3 with KTA regardless of level of preoperative panel reactive antibody.

4 nd 2.3 (P = 0.006) when controlling for high panel-reactive antibody.

5 age, previous transplantation, and elevated panel-reactive antibody.

6 lass II antibodies were monitored using flow panel reactive antibodies.

7 ts of imported kidneys had a 100% calculated panel reactive antibodies.

8 recipients, and/or those with high titer of panel-reactive antibodies.

9 capillary injury syndrome in the absence of panel-reactive antibodies.

10 The proportion of recipients with calculated panel-reactive antibody =100 increased from 1.0% to 10.3

11 .0001), rejection (P<0.0001), and transplant panel reactive antibody 20% or more (P=0.03) were risk f

12 el-reactive antibodies > 70%, n= 7; moderate panel-reactive antibodies 30-40%, n=2) were analyzed.

13 significantly better in nonsensitized (<20% panel reactive antibodies; 68% vs. 55%; P<0.0005) but no

14 th high allosensitization (median calculated panel reactive antibody = 77%) underwent HALT.

15 (40.0-43.0-43.5, P = 0.04), proportion with panel reactive antibody 80-100 (22.0%-32.7%-48.7%, P < 0

16 usting for age, race, donor status, and peak panel-reactive antibody, a discharge tacrolimus trough c

17 icity, original disease, maximum and current panel reactive antibodies, ABO blood type, retransplants

18 d no significant difference in pretransplant panel reactive antibodies, acute rejection at 1-year nor

19 ols and to waitlist-only matched controls on panel reactive antibody, age, blood group, renal replace

20 ody level, measured by an antihuman globulin panel reactive antibody (AHG PRA) level, in 90 unsensiti

21 Antidonor HLA antibody was sought by panel-reactive antibody analysis and/or donor cross matc

22 ossmatches based on different combination of panel reactive antibodies and crossmatch techniques vari

23 Calculated panel reactive antibody and a positive flow cytometry cr

24 We also reviewed whether pretransplant panel reactive antibody and donor-specific antibody affe

25 ized patient sera were grouped by calculated panel reactive antibody and luminex single antigen react

26 In this group, mean peak panel reactive antibody and MFI at transplant were 51% +

27 Organ Sharing new guidelines for calculated panel reactive antibody and virtual XM analysis.

28 first transplant, the patient's serum had 0% panel reactive antibody and was crossmatch compatible wi

29 Testing included the historically highest panel-reactive antibody and the immediate (0-7 days) pre

30 match, donor-specific antibody, and elevated panel reactive antibody) and demonstrated some benefits

31 recipient age, body mass index, sex, current panel reactive antibodies, and waiting time.

32 mographics, donor source, retransplantation, panel reactive antibody, and human leukocyte antigen mis

33 ants, prolonged cold ischemia time, elevated panel reactive antibody, and recurrent disease were iden

34 c versus living donor, 48-hr graft function, panel reactive antibody, and total HLA mismatches or mat

35 matched in terms of race, HCV co-infection, panel reactive antibody, and wait time except HIV + were

36 ration of end-stage renal disease and higher panel reactive antibody, and was less likely to receive

37 ender, race, HLA mismatch, time on dialysis, panel-reactive antibodies, and cold and warm ischemia ti

38 ith 74.5% of the cohort having 0% calculated panel-reactive antibody, and 60.4% with private insuranc

39 Gender, peak panel-reactive antibody, and ABO blood type were not fou

40 exported for candidates with >98% calculated panel reactive antibodies are transplanted into unintend

41 Panel reactive antibodies at the time of transplant were

42 e stratified by age, race, creatinine level, panel-reactive antibody at listing, and blood group.

43 original intended donor, and the calculated panel-reactive antibodies based on MFI of 2000, 4000, an

44 The median calculated panel reactive antibody before COVID-19 diagnosis (24%)

45 ss, particularly in patients with detectable panel-reactive antibody before second transplant (hazard

46 ys, 3 developed an extremely elevated (>90%) panel reactive antibody by ELISA that was not confirmed

47 r II >99%, complement-dependent cytotoxicity panel reactive antibody [CDC PRA+], C1q+) heart transpla

48 Median panel-reactive antibody change at relisting increased fr

49 ciation between number of HLA mismatches and panel-reactive antibody change was similar between eras

50 However, the panel reactive antibodies correlated with the number of

51 ansplantations including 10% with Calculated panel reactive antibody (cPRA) >/=97%.

52 secutive patients with a baseline calculated panel reactive antibody (cPRA) >=50% that underwent kidn

53 Patients with calculated panel reactive antibody (cPRA) >=80.00%, particularly th

54 among sensitized minority women [calculated panel reactive antibody (cPRA) 11%-49%: aHR 4.79; 95% CI

55 her proportion of recipients with calculated panel reactive antibody (cPRA) 81%-98% (12% versus 8%; P

56 ney allocation program introduced calculated panel reactive antibody (cPRA) based on antibody exclusi

57 dney transplant candidates with a calculated panel reactive antibody (cPRA) greater than 50% and on t

58 udy, 57 HT candidates with pre-HT calculated panel reactive antibody (cPRA) level of >50% for anti-hu

59 ensitized candidates based on the calculated panel reactive antibody (CPRA) value.

60 UA-PD and the effects of UA-PD on calculated panel reactive antibody (cPRA) values for 4867 kidney re

61 ents whose median flow cytometric calculated panel reactive antibody (CPRA) was 100% and mean wait-li

62 ethnicity, blood group type, and calculated Panel Reactive Antibody (cPRA).

63 n Sharing database generating the calculated panel reactive antibody (CPRA).

64 ber 4, 2009, to December 3, 2014) calculated panel-reactive antibodies (cPRA)-100% recipients to 3026

65 Small reductions in calculated panel-reactive antibody (cPRA) are associated with incre

66 Having a calculated panel-reactive antibody (cPRA) of 80% or greater was ind

67 elopment of a numeric metric, the calculated panel-reactive antibody (CPRA) that predicts the likelih

68 Changes in antibody levels and calculated panel-reactive antibody (CPRA) were compared using chi a

69 conferring priority points for a calculated panel-reactive antibody (CPRA)>19%, broader sharing of k

70 Four highly sensitized (calculated panel reactive antibody [cPRA] class I and/or II >99%, c

71 In 31 transplant candidates (calculated panel-reactive antibody [cPRA], 34%-99%), desensitizatio

72 nsplant options for patients with calculated panel-reactive antibodies (cPRAs) >=98%, based on virtua

73 two groups in regards to age, gender, race, panel reactive antibodies, degree of mismatch, donor age

74 ffect modifiers, including public insurance, panel reactive antibody, delayed graft function, and ste

75 es, such as age, gender, race, HLA mismatch, panel reactive antibody, delayed graft function, cold is

76 Calculated panel reactive antibody did not account for all the harm

77 ictors were age, sex, blood type, calculated panel-reactive antibodies, donation service area, dialys

78 es of transplantation, previous transplants, panel reactive antibodies, donor specific antibody, cros

79 tis C virus status, cardiovascular diseases, panel reactive antibody, donor types, donor creatinine,

80 itoring, human leukocyte antigen typing, and panel reactive antibody except in a few tertiary care ce

81 The use of flow cytometry based panel reactive antibody (flow-PRA) provides a highly sen

82 dults showed significantly increased class I panel reactive antibody following VAD support.

83 unacceptable antigens lowered the calculated panel reactive antibody for 90 patients, sometimes drama

84 American, three patients had a pretransplant panel reactive antibody greater than 20%, and the human

85 similar proportion of recipients had a peak panel reactive antibody greater than 20%; the two groups

86 similar proportion of recipients had a peak panel reactive antibody greater than 20%; the two groups

87 on dialysis before waitlisting, tobacco use, panel-reactive antibody greater than 0, public insurance

88 etransplant recipient, or a recipient with a panel-reactive antibody greater than 50%.

89 ransplant, and 35% of these had a calculated panel-reactive antibody greater than 90%.

90 cluded recipient blood type O and calculated panel reactive antibodies >=98%.

91 For the most highly sensitized patients (panel reactive antibody > 80%), a deceased-donor-first s

92 epeat transplant, African American race, and panel reactive antibody > or =20%) from July 2004 to Jul

93 ator dependence, higher blood urea nitrogen, panel reactive antibody >10%, and lower body surface are

94 diomyopathy, higher blood urea nitrogen, and panel reactive antibody >10%.

95 itional risk factors for DGF (odds ratio for panel reactive antibody >10%: 1.17, confidence interval

96 nized (sHI) patient were as follows: virtual panel reactive antibody >85% and participating for 2 yea

97 Half the LDKT in 2021 in sensitized (panel reactive antibody >= 80%) and highly sensitized (p

98 tive antibody >= 80%) and highly sensitized (panel reactive antibody >= 98%) groups occurred via KPD.

99 recipients with expanded criteria donors or panel reactive antibody >=50% at Hospital do Rim, Brazil

100 th varying levels of HLA sensitization (high panel-reactive antibodies > 70%, n= 7; moderate panel-re

101 s within the Eurotransplant network who have panel-reactive antibodies >85% still cannot access donor

102 study cohort into high-risk (age > 60 years, panel-reactive antibody > 20%, African American race, Ki

103 t failure in those ages >/=65 years included panel-reactive antibody >10%, congestive heart failure (

104 The percent of patients with peak panel-reactive antibody >50% was higher for American Ind

105 d 21 high immunological risk patients (i.e., panel reactive antibody>20% or previous transplant).

106 sitization at KT/pHT waitlisting (calculated panel reactive antibody, >= 20%) was associated with a l

107 r criteria, delayed graft function, elevated panel reactive antibody, higher human leukocyte antigen

108 icantly influenced by recipient age, maximum panel reactive antibodies, HLA mismatches, donor type, d

109 transplant-related factors (transplant era, panel reactive antibodies, human leukocyte antigens mism

110 Anti-HLA antibody strength and calculated panel reactive antibody in kidney transplant recipients

111 Median calculated panel-reactive antibody in registered recipients was 83%

112 The mean class I and class II panel reactive antibodies increased from 11% to 27% and

113 Mean % panel reactive antibody increased from 6% to 45% for ret

114 tive of the follow-up period, the calculated panel-reactive antibodies increased by a mean of 1%, and

115 l disease, history of a previous transplant, panel reactive antibodies less than 80%, dialysis depend

116 20 kg, children, liver-inclusive allograft, panel reactive antibody less than 20%, absence of donor-

117 ive high-risk cadaver transplant recipients (panel reactive antibody level >30%, repeat transplant re

118 oing retransplantation, and six (8.7%) had a panel reactive antibody level of 40% or higher.

119 an elevated (>80) donor-specific calculated panel reactive antibody level.

120 mic cardiomyopathy (54%) and a pretransplant panel-reactive antibody level of <10% (93%).

121 The mean panel-reactive antibody level was 44+/-30% after the sec

122 sitized patients (with a mean [+/-SD] T-cell panel-reactive antibody level, determined by use of the

123 ses accounting for recipient age, sex, race, panel-reactive antibody level, HLA match, cold ischemia

124 anted by paired donation, 44% had calculated panel reactive antibody levels greater than 80%.

125 any demographic variables, serum creatinine, panel reactive antibody levels, donor-specific antibody

126 Pretransplant panel reactive antibody levels, pregnancy, number of blo

127 diated but not fully explained by calculated panel reactive antibody levels.

128 city of the recipient, and presensitization (panel-reactive antibody levels > or = 20%) were signific

129 lly considered internationally as those with panel-reactive antibody levels of >85%, remain a substan

130 lantations, and 6 (7%) were in patients with panel-reactive antibody levels over 40%.

131 We recorded rates of transplantation, panel-reactive antibody levels, cross-matching results a

132 as advantageous, but for all other patients (panel reactive antibody < 80%), a living-donor-first str

133 ry kidney transplant recipients at low risk (panel-reactive antibodies <20%, no donor-specific antibo

134 s to increased sensitization, as measured by panel-reactive antibody metrics.

135 confirmed these associations and identified panel reactive antibody more than 10% and low center vol

136 %), pretransplant transfusion (75% vs. 34%), panel reactive antibody more than 20% (56% vs. 14%), and

137 djusted graft failure risks in patients with panel reactive antibody more than 20% (HR 1.30, 95% CI 1

138 who received repeat transplants (85%) or had panel reactive antibody more than 40% (19%) and were mai

139 univariate analyses were retransplantation, panel-reactive antibody more than 0%, cytomegalovirus D+

140 erican race (68%), retransplants (12%), peak panel reactive antibody of atleast 20% (19%), expanded c

141 the kidneys transplanted in patients with a panel reactive antibody of more than 80% were from 0-MM

142 epeat transplant, a peak or current value of panel-reactive antibodies of 20% or more, or black race.

143 nd enabled patients with a median calculated panel-reactive antibody of 99.83% to undergo kidney tran

144 ease, 0.72 [0.54-0.96]) along with a maximum panel-reactive antibody of more than 10% (3.80 [1.73-8.3

145 The class I HLA panel reactive antibody only significantly increased in

146 acute rejection (OR 2.5, P = 0.03) and high panel-reactive antibody (OR 3.4, P = 0.006), However, th

147 ants (P=0.0001), acute rejection (P=0.0001), panel reactive antibody (P=0.0001), discharge creatinine

148 splants, nonprivate insurance, and increased panel reactive antibody percent.

149 > or = 40%; ROP tray negative; D, 0-B,Dr-MM; panel reactive antibodies (PRA) <40%; E, 0-B,Dr payback;

150 Patients with panel reactive antibodies (PRA) 70% and pre-formed donor

151 recipient and donor demographics, cytotoxic panel reactive antibodies (PRA) against T-cell targets a

152 g islet transplantation was detected by FLOW panel reactive antibodies (PRA) and donor-specific cellu

153 n was found between the degree of anti-human panel reactive antibodies (PRA) and xenoreactivity again

154 High levels of pretransplant panel reactive antibodies (PRA) are known to be associat

155 Panel reactive antibodies (PRA) were determined using Fl

156 splant recipients includes the assessment of panel reactive antibodies (PRA).

157 lantation (HT) often have elevated levels of panel reactive antibodies (PRA).

158 2.9, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.1-7.9), panel reactive antibody (PRA) > 20% (HR 2.8, 95% CI 1.1-

159 Historically, panel reactive antibody (PRA) analysis to detect HLA ant

160 Panel reactive antibody (PRA) analysis was performed on

161 analyzed a subset of 119 patients with a low panel reactive antibody (PRA) before transplantation and

162 n both donor and recipient and pretransplant panel reactive antibody (PRA) data.

163 The primary outcome was change in panel reactive antibody (PRA) from prior to recipient's

164 s compared with zero haplotype mismatch, and panel reactive antibody (PRA) greater than 30%.

165 We defined sensitization as panel reactive antibody (PRA) more than 10% or a positiv

166 659 transplants (5.5%) were in-patients with panel reactive antibody (PRA) more than or equal to 80%.

167 oat antihuman immunoglobulin-enhanced T-cell panel reactive antibody (PRA) of >or=10% were considered

168 -specific antibodies and four an increase in panel reactive antibody (PRA) of at least 20% (P=0.002).

169 The Class I HLA panel reactive antibody (PRA) only significantly increas

170 LA antibodies were measured by FLXM and flow panel reactive antibody (PRA) screening beads.

171 Pretransplantation panel reactive antibody (PRA) testing assesses posttrans

172 zed patients increases proportionally to the panel reactive antibody (PRA) titer.

173 s waiting for a kidney transplant and having panel reactive antibody (PRA) values greater than 85% an

174 The sera of 35 pretransplant panel reactive antibody (PRA)-negative patients with fai

175 lantation outcomes as a function of race and panel reactive antibody (PRA).

176 try data were used to reconstruct changes in panel reactive antibody (PRA)/cPRA for all patients acti

177 before transplantation, higher percentage of panel-reactive antibodies (PRA), were more likely to rec

178 sitization protocol for candidates with high panel-reactive antibodies (PRA).

179 0 vs. 52.3 years, P=0.14) and had lower peak panel-reactive antibodies (PRA; 5.1% vs. 15.6%, P=0.07)

180 els of sharing are: (1) 0 A,B mismatch (MM); panel-reactive antibody (PRA) > or = 40%; negative ROP c

181 Cytotoxic panel-reactive antibody (PRA) and SAB assays were analyz

182 We measured the level of HLA panel-reactive antibody (PRA) before surgery, 1 week aft

183 cluding group 1: 58 primary transplants with panel-reactive antibody (PRA) less than 20%, group 2: 16

184 A low panel-reactive antibody (PRA) may indicate low-risk cond

185 nts evaluated, even though the percentage of panel-reactive antibody (PRA) often demonstrated conside

186 Sensitization, defined as a positive panel-reactive antibody (PRA) screen in patients awaitin

187 cipated in an extensive screening of 92 high panel-reactive antibody (PRA) sera from patients at 29 t

188 patients were analyzed on the basis of their panel-reactive antibody (PRA) status, 10 of 15 (66.7%) w

189 Panel-reactive antibody (PRA) testing provides assessmen

190 Panel-reactive antibody (PRA) testing was performed with

191 Mean peak panel-reactive antibody (PRA) was 47+/-32.

192 Panel-reactive antibody (PRA) was measured yearly for th

193 Measurement of panel-reactive antibody (PRA) with an enzyme-linked immu

194 Preformed HLA antibodies (Ab), reported as panel-reactive antibody (PRA), prolong patient waiting t

195 matching (mm), HLA-DR mm, pretransplantation panel-reactive antibody (PRA), recipient and donor race

196 ipient cardiac diagnosis, HLA, and recipient panel-reactive antibody (PRA).

197 (HLA) and anti-MICA antibodies or to percent panel-reactive antibody (PRA; by complement-dependent cy

198 base testing for determination of percentage panel reactive antibody ("PRA screen") with limited anti

199 s among recipients stratified by the percent panel reactive antibody (% PRA) of pre-Tx sera as detect

200 Records of nonsensitized patients (panel reactive antibodies [PRA] <20%) receiving a primar

201 who were highly sensitized to HLA antigens (panel reactive antibody [PRA] > or =50% monthly for 3 mo

202 ransplant recipient at low immunologic risk (panel reactive antibody [PRA] < 20%), received LIS1 for

203 ent failure occurred in a highly sensitized (panel reactive antibody [PRA] of 52%) recipient.

204 very low for the broadly sensitized patient (panel reactive antibody [PRA]>80%; HS).

205 equal numbers of black, retransplants, high panel reactive antibodies (PRAs) (>20%), and prolonged c

206 an leukocyte antigen antibodies, measured as panel reactive antibodies (PRAs), are related to mortali

207 inal disease, retransplants, ABO blood type, panel-reactive antibody, previous treatment, and transpl

208 tigens selected to give a virtual calculated panel-reactive antibody ranging 70% to 80% to improve HL

209 5%; P<0.0005) but not in sensitized (>or=20% panel reactive antibodies) recipients, who showed an ear

210 epletion, anti-HLA antibodies and calculated panel reactive antibody scores were stable for 1 year af

211 lower rates of HLA matching, lower levels of panel-reactive antibodies, shorter cold ischemia times,

212 ho had data available for analysis, the mean panel-reactive antibody significantly increased after ne

213 The panel reactive antibody test (PRA) is an established met

214 elated variables (living or cadaveric donor, panel-reactive antibody titer, extent of HLA matching, a

215 We used human panel reactive antibody to form membrane attack complexe

216 ysis, HLA mismatches, recipient age, current panel-reactive antibodies, transplant year, donor age, c

217 eficient hosts engrafted with human T cells, panel-reactive antibody--treated grafts recruited more i

218 h chronic antibody-mediated rejection and in panel-reactive antibody--treated human coronary artery x

219 age of patients were highly sensitized (peak panel reactive antibody value >80%; P=0.009), had had a

220 he relative transplantation rate and virtual panel-reactive antibodies (vPRAs), which is the percenta

221 due to UAM was expressed as percent virtual panel-reactive antibodies (vPRAs).

222 ant, the mean+/-standard deviation (SD) peak panel-reactive antibody was 60+/-33 and median donor-spe

223 ection of the failed allograft, and anti-HLA panel reactive antibodies were determined at 1, 3, 6, an

224 Panel reactive antibodies were performed by conventional

225 casian race, public insurance, and increased panel-reactive antibody were associated with decreased r

226 tus groups, with the exception of calculated panel-reactive antibody which was lowest in the D+/R- gr

227 pient age, sex, race, ethnicity, blood type, panel reactive antibody, year of placement on the waitin