The 2024 Banff meeting was from September 16-20 in Paris. We solicited the below input from the international transplant community to guide in-person discussions.
Note: The full meeting program and registration information can be found here: https://site.pheedloop.com/event/2024BanffPITOR/home)*
*some final changes to session and presentation titles might occur
Join the conversation onTCMR, AMR and mixed rejection by commenting on:
What are the most important knowledge gaps and/or unmet clinical needs?
What questions would you ask the moderators and speakers?
How to comment:
Click on the comment box and you will be prompted to create an account
Once your account is created, you will return to the article, please enter your comment and click publish
Make sure to follow the post for updates on new comments and replies
Yes we need a process for mixed as is it common late.
i like separating the components in some arrangement like:
the dominant clinico-pathological diagnosis integrating all data (inc DSA) as the first line
e.g. AMR and starting with the immunologcial diagnosis if that is the primary expanatory abnormality - as that is clinician will needs to respond to.
2. the secondary diagnosis on the next line (e.g mixed with TCMR for example, or with CA-TCMR if you have C AMR) if that is of less pathological importance. We need separating them out to allows for targeted treatment. (e.g we can treat TCMR easily whereas chronic AMR is harder)
3. Other backgroung features commonly:
a) nephron loss as IFTA % as this estimates salvageable kidney and is informative for treatment decision and determins in part the therapeutic response (along with patient factors which will be considered by the clinician.
b) CNI nephrotoxicity etc.