Show simple item record

AuthorSapir-Pichhadze, Ruth
AuthorAskar, Medhat
AuthorCooper, Matthew
AuthorCornell, Lynn D.
AuthorCozzi, Emanuele
AuthorDadhania, Darshana M.
AuthorDiekmann, Fritz
Authorde Vries, Aiko P.J.
AuthorSchinstock, Carrie A.
AuthorCarroll, Robert P.
AuthorAbdelrehim, Ahmad
AuthorGan, Geliang
AuthorDeng, Yanhong
AuthorAlasfar, Sami
AuthorBagnasco, Serena M.
AuthorBatal, Ibrahim
AuthorBudde, Klemens
AuthorClahsen-van Groningen, Marian C.
AuthorKung, Vanderlene L.
AuthorLower, Fritz
AuthorSeija, Mariana
AuthorKraus, Edward
AuthorNaesens, Maarten
AuthorBow, Laurine M.
Available date2025-06-16T08:27:22Z
Publication Date2025-04-10
Publication NameClinical Transplantation
Identifierhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ctr.70167
CitationSapir‐Pichhadze, R., Askar, M., Cooper, M., Cornell, L. D., Cozzi, E., Dadhania, D. M., ... & Banff Antibody‐Mediated Injury Working Group. (2025). Rethinking the Diagnosis and Management of Antibody‐Mediated Rejection in Multidisciplinary Transplant Meetings: A Global Survey and Banff Working Group Recommendations. Clinical Transplantation, 39(5), e70167.
ISSN0902-0063
URIhttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=105004338859&origin=inward
URIhttp://hdl.handle.net/10576/65562
AbstractIntroduction: The diagnosis of antibody-mediated rejection (AMR) requires input from several transplant professionals. Bringing clinical and laboratory experts together may help standardize care. Yet, little is known about current global practices of multidisciplinary meetings for AMR management. Methods: The Banff Antibody-Mediated Injury Working Group approached professional societies worldwide to distribute a survey on the availability, content, participants, perceived value, and barriers to the implementation of multidisciplinary meetings. Results: Four hundred two transplant professionals from six continents caring for kidney (90.55%), liver (21.14%), pancreas (20.65%), heart (15.17%), and lung (14.18%) transplant recipients participated in the survey, and 302 (75.12%) reported attending multidisciplinary meetings. Multidisciplinary meetings were more prevalent in academic centers, in high- versus low-to-middle-income regions (81.03% and 65.99%, respectively; p < 0.001), and in mid-to-large size transplant programs compared to smaller programs. Perceived value included continued professional development (97.68%) and trainee education (95.70%). AMR was reported to be discussed at these meetings by 217 respondents with case presentations reviewing patient characteristics, histology, and HLA antibody data. A third of the respondents reviewed non-HLA/pathogenic autoantibodies and/or molecular diagnostics, with the latter being more frequently applied in high- versus low-to-middle-income regions (46.71% and 12.31%, respectively; p < 0.001). AMR case presentations allowed diagnosis revision, actionable management plans and were perceived as improving care. The primary barrier to the implementation of multidisciplinary meetings (63.27%) was the unavailability of transplant professionals (e.g., transplant immunologists). Conclusion: Facilitating multidisciplinary meetings through the remote participation of pertinent experts and incentivizing participation through remuneration, protected time, or continued medical education may help standardize AMR diagnosis and harmonize its management.
Languageen
PublisherJohn Wiley & Sons
Subjectantibody-mediated rejection
diagnosis
management
multidisciplinary
transplant
TitleRethinking the Diagnosis and Management of Antibody-Mediated Rejection in Multidisciplinary Transplant Meetings: A Global Survey and Banff Working Group Recommendations
TypeArticle
Issue Number5
Volume Number39
ESSN1399-0012
dc.accessType Open Access


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record