{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.014795474325500435, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.96969696969697, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Protective immunity and use of bortezomib for antibody‐mediated rejection in a pediatric kidney transplant recipient

Standard treatments for AMR—rituximab, intravenous immunoglobulin, and/or plasmapheresis—aim to suppress the production and modulate the effect of donor‐specific antibodies and remove them, respectively. Proteasome inhibitors such as bortezomib are potent therapeutic agents that target plasma cells more effectively than rituximab to reduce measurable donor‐specific antibody production. Little is known in adults, and no data exist in children about effects of proteasome inhibition to treat AMR on protective antibody titers. We present a pediatric renal transplant recipient who received bortezomib for relatively early AMR and whose antibody titers to measles and tetanus were tracked. The AMR was treated successfully, and we noted no clinical decrease in the overall level of protective immunity from pretransplant baseline levels at almost one yr after AMR treatment cessation. Larger studies will elucidate more clearly how proteasome inhibition to treat AMR affects protective immunity in pediatric transplant recipients.