美国肠道移植中心免疫抑制实践的首次集体检查。

IF 1.9 Q3 TRANSPLANTATION Transplantation Direct Pub Date : 2023-09-01 DOI:10.1097/TXD.0000000000001512
Joshua Weiner, Nathaly Llore, Dylan Ormsby, Masato Fujiki, Maria Cristina Segovia, Mark Obri, Syed-Mohammed Jafri, Jedson Liggett, Alexander H K Kroemer, Cal Matsumoto, Jang Moon, Pierpaolo Di Cocco, Gennaro Selvaggi, Jennifer Garcia, Armando Ganoza, Ajai Khanna, George Mazariegos, Danielle Wendel, Jorge Reyes
{"title":"美国肠道移植中心免疫抑制实践的首次集体检查。","authors":"Joshua Weiner,&nbsp;Nathaly Llore,&nbsp;Dylan Ormsby,&nbsp;Masato Fujiki,&nbsp;Maria Cristina Segovia,&nbsp;Mark Obri,&nbsp;Syed-Mohammed Jafri,&nbsp;Jedson Liggett,&nbsp;Alexander H K Kroemer,&nbsp;Cal Matsumoto,&nbsp;Jang Moon,&nbsp;Pierpaolo Di Cocco,&nbsp;Gennaro Selvaggi,&nbsp;Jennifer Garcia,&nbsp;Armando Ganoza,&nbsp;Ajai Khanna,&nbsp;George Mazariegos,&nbsp;Danielle Wendel,&nbsp;Jorge Reyes","doi":"10.1097/TXD.0000000000001512","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Unlike other solid organs, no standardized treatment algorithms exist for intestinal transplantation (ITx). We established a consortium of American ITx centers to evaluate current practices.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>All American centers performing ITx during the past 3 y were invited to participate. As a consortium, we generated questions to evaluate and collect data from each institution. The data were compiled and analyzed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Ten centers participated, performing 211 ITx during the past 3 y (range, 3-46; mean 21.1). Induction regimens varied widely. Thymoglobulin was the most common, used in the plurality of patients (85/211; 40.3%), but there was no consensus regimen. Similarly, regimens for the treatment of acute cellular rejection, antibody-mediated rejection, and graft-versus-host disease varied significantly between centers. We also evaluated differences in maintenance immunosuppression protocols, desensitization regimens, mammalian target of rapamycin use, antimetabolite use, and posttransplantation surveillance practices. Maintenance tacrolimus levels, stoma presence, and scoping frequency were not associated with differences in rejection events. Definitive association between treatments and outcomes, including graft and patient survival, was not the intention of this initial collaboration and is prevented by the lack of patient-level data and the presence of confounders. However, we identified trends regarding rejection episodes after various induction strategies that require further investigation in our subsequent collaborations.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This initial collaboration reveals the extreme heterogeneity of practices among American ITx centers. Future collaboration will explore patient-level data, stratified by age and transplant type (isolated intestine versus multivisceral), to explore the association between treatment regimens and outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":23225,"journal":{"name":"Transplantation Direct","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/03/ca/txd-9-e1512.PMC10455426.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The First Collective Examination of Immunosuppressive Practices Among American Intestinal Transplant Centers.\",\"authors\":\"Joshua Weiner,&nbsp;Nathaly Llore,&nbsp;Dylan Ormsby,&nbsp;Masato Fujiki,&nbsp;Maria Cristina Segovia,&nbsp;Mark Obri,&nbsp;Syed-Mohammed Jafri,&nbsp;Jedson Liggett,&nbsp;Alexander H K Kroemer,&nbsp;Cal Matsumoto,&nbsp;Jang Moon,&nbsp;Pierpaolo Di Cocco,&nbsp;Gennaro Selvaggi,&nbsp;Jennifer Garcia,&nbsp;Armando Ganoza,&nbsp;Ajai Khanna,&nbsp;George Mazariegos,&nbsp;Danielle Wendel,&nbsp;Jorge Reyes\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/TXD.0000000000001512\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Unlike other solid organs, no standardized treatment algorithms exist for intestinal transplantation (ITx). We established a consortium of American ITx centers to evaluate current practices.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>All American centers performing ITx during the past 3 y were invited to participate. As a consortium, we generated questions to evaluate and collect data from each institution. The data were compiled and analyzed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Ten centers participated, performing 211 ITx during the past 3 y (range, 3-46; mean 21.1). Induction regimens varied widely. Thymoglobulin was the most common, used in the plurality of patients (85/211; 40.3%), but there was no consensus regimen. Similarly, regimens for the treatment of acute cellular rejection, antibody-mediated rejection, and graft-versus-host disease varied significantly between centers. We also evaluated differences in maintenance immunosuppression protocols, desensitization regimens, mammalian target of rapamycin use, antimetabolite use, and posttransplantation surveillance practices. Maintenance tacrolimus levels, stoma presence, and scoping frequency were not associated with differences in rejection events. Definitive association between treatments and outcomes, including graft and patient survival, was not the intention of this initial collaboration and is prevented by the lack of patient-level data and the presence of confounders. However, we identified trends regarding rejection episodes after various induction strategies that require further investigation in our subsequent collaborations.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This initial collaboration reveals the extreme heterogeneity of practices among American ITx centers. Future collaboration will explore patient-level data, stratified by age and transplant type (isolated intestine versus multivisceral), to explore the association between treatment regimens and outcomes.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23225,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Transplantation Direct\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/03/ca/txd-9-e1512.PMC10455426.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Transplantation Direct\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/TXD.0000000000001512\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"TRANSPLANTATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Transplantation Direct","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/TXD.0000000000001512","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"TRANSPLANTATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:与其他实体器官不同,肠移植(ITx)没有标准化的治疗算法。我们建立了一个由美国ITx中心组成的联盟来评估当前的实践。方法:邀请所有在过去3年内进行ITx的美国中心参与。作为一个联合体,我们产生了一些问题来评估和收集来自每个机构的数据。对数据进行了汇编和分析。结果:10个中心参与,在过去的3年中进行了211次ITx(范围,3-46;意思是21.1)。诱导方案差别很大。胸腺球蛋白是最常见的,在多数患者中使用(85/211;40.3%),但没有共识方案。同样,治疗急性细胞排斥反应、抗体介导的排斥反应和移植物抗宿主病的方案在各中心之间也有显著差异。我们还评估了维持免疫抑制方案、脱敏方案、哺乳动物雷帕霉素靶点使用、抗代谢物使用和移植后监测实践的差异。维持他克莫司水平、造口存在和范围检查频率与排斥事件的差异无关。治疗和结果(包括移植物和患者生存)之间的明确关联并不是最初合作的目的,并且由于缺乏患者水平的数据和混杂因素的存在而受到阻碍。然而,我们确定了各种诱导策略后排斥事件的趋势,需要在我们随后的合作中进一步研究。结论:这一初步合作揭示了美国ITx中心实践的极端异质性。未来的合作将探索患者水平的数据,按年龄和移植类型(分离肠与多内脏)分层,以探索治疗方案和结果之间的关系。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The First Collective Examination of Immunosuppressive Practices Among American Intestinal Transplant Centers.

Background: Unlike other solid organs, no standardized treatment algorithms exist for intestinal transplantation (ITx). We established a consortium of American ITx centers to evaluate current practices.

Methods: All American centers performing ITx during the past 3 y were invited to participate. As a consortium, we generated questions to evaluate and collect data from each institution. The data were compiled and analyzed.

Results: Ten centers participated, performing 211 ITx during the past 3 y (range, 3-46; mean 21.1). Induction regimens varied widely. Thymoglobulin was the most common, used in the plurality of patients (85/211; 40.3%), but there was no consensus regimen. Similarly, regimens for the treatment of acute cellular rejection, antibody-mediated rejection, and graft-versus-host disease varied significantly between centers. We also evaluated differences in maintenance immunosuppression protocols, desensitization regimens, mammalian target of rapamycin use, antimetabolite use, and posttransplantation surveillance practices. Maintenance tacrolimus levels, stoma presence, and scoping frequency were not associated with differences in rejection events. Definitive association between treatments and outcomes, including graft and patient survival, was not the intention of this initial collaboration and is prevented by the lack of patient-level data and the presence of confounders. However, we identified trends regarding rejection episodes after various induction strategies that require further investigation in our subsequent collaborations.

Conclusions: This initial collaboration reveals the extreme heterogeneity of practices among American ITx centers. Future collaboration will explore patient-level data, stratified by age and transplant type (isolated intestine versus multivisceral), to explore the association between treatment regimens and outcomes.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Transplantation Direct
Transplantation Direct TRANSPLANTATION-
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
4.30%
发文量
193
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊最新文献
Beyond 75: Graft Allocation and Organ Utility Implications in Liver Transplantation. Clinical Translation and Implementation of a Bioartificial Pancreas Therapy: A Qualitative Study Exploring the Perspectives of People With Type 1 Diabetes. Making Living-donor Liver Transplantation a Viable Option for Patients With Portopulmonary Hypertension. Outcomes of Older Primary Kidney Transplant Recipients by Induction Agent and High-risk Viral Discordance Status in the United States. Molecular Signature Associated With Acute Rejection in Vascularized Composite Allotransplantation.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1