Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Background: Donor-derived cell-free DNA (dd-cfDNA) is a biomarker validated to detect rejection when measured to assess kidney allograft dysfunction. However, it remains unclear whether routine surveillance with dd-cfDNA provides additional information over standard monitoring of kidney allografts with creatinine and donor-specific antibodies (DSAs), particularly among those with little suspicion of rejection or injury. We investigated the value of measuring dd-cfDNA in patients with preserved allograft function and describe its association with future events.
Methods: Three-hundred seventeen kidney transplant recipients with a creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL, no current DSA, and no prior rejection were assessed with dd-cfDNA and categorized into low (dd-cfDNA <0.5%; n = 239), moderate (dd-cfDNA 0.5% to <1.0%; n = 43), and high (dd-cfDNA ≥1.0%; n = 35) groups. The occurrence of rejection, DSA, graft loss, and change in estimated glomerular filtration rate over time after dd-cfDNA assessment was compared.
Results: Over follow-up, rejections were more commonly found among patients with high vs low dd-cfDNA (17% versus 5%; P = 0.01); a similar nonsignificant trend was observed among patients with moderate compared to low dd-cfDNA (12% versus 5%; P = 0.13). DSA development was uncommon and not different between groups (low: 4%; moderate: 3%; high: 0%; P = 0.52). There was only 1 graft loss in a patient with low dd-cfDNA, and dd-cfDNA was not associated with graft dysfunction over time.
Conclusions: Most patients with elevated dd-cfDNA in conjunction with preserved allograft function remained stable over follow-up without deterioration in function or graft loss. Studies are needed to differentiate patients with elevated dd-cfDNA who will develop adverse outcomes from those who will remain clinically stable.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/TP.0000000000004267 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!