Which outcome demonstrates reversal of organ rejection due to immunosuppressants?

• A. Immunosuppressants cause immediate infection.
• B. Immunosuppressants reversed the organ rejection.
• C. Rejection episodes continue despite therapy.
• D. Dialysis is required.

Answer: (B)

The key idea is that organ rejection is driven by the immune system attacking the transplanted organ, and immunosuppressants work by dampening that immune response, especially T-cell activation. When the rejection is reversed, you see the graft begin to function again because the inflammatory attack has been controlled and the tissue injury subsides.

So, the outcome that best demonstrates reversal is that immunosuppressants caused the graft to stop being attacked and start functioning again. Clinically, this shows up as improved organ function and reduced signs of rejection, often supported by tests or biopsy showing less immune-mediated damage after therapy.

Infections can arise as a side effect of the same immunosuppression, but they don’t represent reversal of rejection. If rejection continues despite therapy, that indicates the treatment isn’t working. Dialysis would reflect ongoing kidney failure and loss of graft function, not reversal.