PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 8775820

[Immunosuppressive guidelines. The differences and advantages].

J M Arizón del Prado
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

There is nowadays a revolution of immunosuppressive regimens for trasplantation. The investigation of new drugs on experimental and clinical protocols is very important because is intended to find a better immunosuppressive drug. This activity is based on a better knowledge of immunology and physiopathology of rejection. Alternative non pharmacological methods are used for the control of severe and repetitive rejection and the study of quimerism and xenotransplantation.

Explore related subjects

Graft RejectionHeart TransplantationHumansImmunosuppression TherapyImmunosuppressive AgentsPractice Guidelines as TopicJournal ArticleReview

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

J M Arizón del Prado. 1995. [Immunosuppressive guidelines. The differences and advantages].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8775820/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2026

Hypoimmune platforms: from rejection to immune evasion and regulatory implications.

The growing gap between organ demand and clinical availability has renewed interest in immune-evasive graft strategies, yet rejection and lifelong immunosuppression remain major barriers to durable success. Advances in genome editing enable immune-evasive cell platforms designed to avoid immune recognition while replacing missing function in allogeneic settings. This review summarizes current strategies for engineering immune-evasive grafts that simultaneously suppress adaptive and innate immune responses. We discuss how coordinated modulation of antigen presentation and immune checkpoint pathways can protect transplanted allogeneic cells and tissues from T, NK, and macrophage-mediated rejection. We also present the emerging concept of integrating hypoimmune engineering with genetically modified porcine donors, where extensive genome editing has reduced, but not eliminated, xenogeneic immune barriers. Combining donor genome modification with immune-evasive graft design represents a promising conceptual advance toward xenograft survival, though whether full elimination of systemic immunosuppression is achievable remains to be established clinically. We further examine how the regulatory landscape for these products is evolving across major jurisdictions, and how differences in approval pathways, manufacturing standards, and long-term surveillance requirements shape the path to clinical translation. Finally, we outline the safety considerations and remaining limitations in immune evasion that must be addressed to enable clinical implementation.

Graft Rejection↗