首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>other >Center practice drives variation in choice of U.S. kidney transplant induction therapy: A retrospective analysis of contemporary practice
【2h】

Center practice drives variation in choice of U.S. kidney transplant induction therapy: A retrospective analysis of contemporary practice

机译:中心实践推动美国肾脏移植诱导疗法选择的差异:当代实践的回顾性分析

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

To assess factors that influence the choice of induction regimen in contemporary kidney transplantation, we examined center-identified, national transplant registry data for 166,776 US recipients (2005–2014). Bi-level hierarchical models were constructed, wherein use of each regimen was compared pairwise with use of interleukin-2 receptor blocking antibodies (IL2rAb). Overall, 81.8% of patients received induction, including thymoglobulin (TMG, 46.0%), IL2rAb (21.9%), alemtuzumab (ALEM, 12.5%), and other agents (1.3%). However, proportions of patients receiving induction varied widely across centers (0%–100%). Recipients of living donor transplants and self-pay patients were less likely to receive induction treatment. Clinical factors associated with use of TMG or ALEM (vs. IL2rAb) included age, black race, sensitization, retransplant status, non-standard deceased donor, and delayed graft function. However, these characteristics explained only 10%–33% of observed variation. Based on intraclass correlation analysis, “center effect” explained most of the variation in TMG (58%), ALEM (66%), other (51%), and no induction (58%) use. Median odds ratios generated from case-factor adjusted models (7.66–11.19) also supported large differences in the likelihood of induction choices between centers. The wide variation in induction therapy choice across US transplant centers is not explained by differences in patient or donor characteristics; rather, it reflects center choice and practice.
机译:为了评估影响当代肾脏移植中诱导方案选择的因素,我们研究了166,776名美国接受者(2005-2014年)的中心确定的全国移植登记数据。构建了双层模型,其中每种方案的使用与白介素2受体阻断抗体(IL2rAb)的使用成对进行了比较。总体而言,有81.8%的患者接受了诱导,包括胸腺球蛋白(TMG,46.0%),IL2rAb(21.9%),阿仑单抗(ALEM,12.5%)和其他药物(1.3%)。但是,各中心接受引产的患者比例差异很大(0%–100%)。活体供体移植和自费患者的接受接受诱导治疗的可能性较小。与使用TMG或ALEM(vs. IL2rAb)相关的临床因素包括年龄,黑种,致敏性,再移植状态,非标准已故供体和移植功能延迟。但是,这些特征仅解释了观测到的变化的10%–33%。根据类内相关性分析,“中心效应”解释了TMG(58%),ALEM(66%),其他(51%)和无诱导(58%)使用的大部分差异。案例因素调整模型(7.66-11.19)产生的中位数比值比率也支持中心间归纳选择可能性的巨大差异。美国移植中心在诱导疗法选择上的巨大差异不能通过患者或供体特征的差异来解释。相反,它反映了中心的选择和实践。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号