Skip to main content
The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews logoLink to The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
. 2017 Jan 11;2017(1):CD004759. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004759.pub2

Polyclonal and monoclonal antibodies for induction therapy in kidney transplant recipients

Penny Hill 1,, Nicholas B Cross 1, A Nicholas R Barnett 2, Suetonia C Palmer 3, Angela C Webster 4,5,6
Editor: Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Group
PMCID: PMC6464766  PMID: 28073178

Abstract

Background

Prolonging kidney transplant survival is an important clinical priority. Induction immunosuppression with antibody therapy is recommended at transplantation and non‐depleting interleukin‐2 receptor monoclonal antibodies (IL2Ra) are considered first line. It is suggested that recipients at high risk of rejection should receive lymphocyte‐depleting antibodies but the relative benefits and harms of the available agents are uncertain.

Objectives

We aimed to: evaluate the relative and absolute effects of different antibody preparations (except IL2Ra) when used as induction therapy in kidney transplant recipients; determine how the benefits and adverse events vary for each antibody preparation; determine how the benefits and harms vary for different formulations of antibody preparation; and determine whether the benefits and harms vary in specific subgroups of recipients (e.g. children and sensitised recipients).

Search methods

We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant's Specialised Register to 29 August 2016 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review.

Selection criteria

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing monoclonal or polyclonal antibodies with placebo, no treatment, or other antibody therapy in adults and children who had received a kidney transplant.

Data collection and analysis

Two authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Dichotomous outcomes are reported as relative risk (RR) and continuous outcomes as mean difference (MD) together with their 95% confidence intervals (CI).

Main results

We included 99 studies (269 records; 8956 participants; 33 with contemporary agents). Methodology was incompletely reported in most studies leading to lower confidence in the treatment estimates.

Antithymocyte globulin (ATG) prevented acute graft rejection (17 studies: RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.78). The benefits of ATG on graft rejection were similar when used with (12 studies: RR 0.61, 0.49 to 0.76) or without (5 studies: RR 0.65, 0.43 to 0.98) calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) treatment. ATG (with CNI therapy) had uncertain effects on death (3 to 6 months, 3 studies: RR 0.41, 0.13 to 1.22; 1 to 2 years, 5 studies: RR 0.75, 0.27 to 2.06; 5 years, 2 studies: RR 0.94, 0.11 to 7.81) and graft loss (3 to 6 months, 4 studies: RR 0.60, 0.34 to 1.05; 1 to 2 years, 3 studies: RR 0.65, 0.36 to 1.19). The effect of ATG on death‐censored graft loss was uncertain at 1 to 2 years and 5 years. In non‐CNI studies, ATG had uncertain effects on death but reduced death‐censored graft loss (6 studies: RR 0.55, 0.38 to 0.78). When CNI and older non‐CNI studies were combined, a benefit was seen with ATG at 1 to 2 years for both all‐cause graft loss (7 studies: RR 0.71, 0.53 to 0.95) and death‐censored graft loss (8 studies: RR 0.55, 0.39 to 0.77) but not sustained longer term. ATG increased cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection (6 studies: RR 1.55, 1.24 to 1.95), leucopenia (4 studies: RR 3.86, 2.79 to 5.34) and thrombocytopenia (4 studies: RR 2.41, 1.61 to 3.61) but had uncertain effects on delayed graft function, malignancy, post‐transplant lymphoproliferative disorder (PTLD), and new onset diabetes after transplantation (NODAT).

Alemtuzumab was compared to ATG in six studies (446 patients) with early steroid withdrawal (ESW) or steroid minimisation. Alemtuzumab plus steroid minimisation reduced acute rejection compared to ATG at one year (4 studies: RR 0.57, 0.35 to 0.93). In the two studies with ESW only in the alemtuzumab arm, the effect of alemtuzumab on acute rejection at 1 year was uncertain compared to ATG (RR 1.27, 0.50 to 3.19). Alemtuzumab had uncertain effects on death (1 year, 2 studies: RR 0.39, 0.06 to 2.42; 2 to 3 years, 3 studies: RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.95), graft loss (1 year, 2 studies: RR 0.39, 0.13 to 1.30; 2 to 3 years, 3 studies: RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.47 to 2.06), and death‐censored graft loss (1 year, 2 studies: RR 0.38, 0.08 to 1.81; 2 to 3 years, 3 studies: RR 2.45, 95% CI 0.67 to 8.97) compared to ATG. Creatinine clearance was lower with alemtuzumab plus ESW at 6 months (2 studies: MD ‐13.35 mL/min, ‐23.91 to ‐2.80) and 2 years (2 studies: MD ‐12.86 mL/min, ‐23.73 to ‐2.00) compared to ATG plus triple maintenance. Across all 6 studies, the effect of alemtuzumab versus ATG was uncertain on all‐cause infection, CMV infection, BK virus infection, malignancy, and PTLD. The effect of alemtuzumab with steroid minimisation on NODAT was uncertain, compared to ATG with steroid maintenance.

Alemtuzumab plus ESW compared with triple maintenance without induction therapy had uncertain effects on death and all‐cause graft loss at 1 year, acute rejection at 6 months and 1 year. CMV infection was increased (2 studies: RR 2.28, 1.18 to 4.40). Treatment effects were uncertain for NODAT, thrombocytopenia, and malignancy or PTLD.

Rituximab had uncertain effects on death, graft loss, acute rejection and all other adverse outcomes compared to placebo.

Authors' conclusions

ATG reduces acute rejection but has uncertain effects on death, graft survival, malignancy and NODAT, and increases CMV infection, thrombocytopenia and leucopenia. Given a 45% acute rejection risk without ATG induction, seven patients would need treatment to prevent one having rejection, while incurring an additional patient experiencing CMV disease for every 12 treated. Excluding non‐CNI studies, the risk of rejection was 37% without induction with six patients needing treatment to prevent one having rejection.

In the context of steroid minimisation, alemtuzumab prevents acute rejection at 1 year compared to ATG. Eleven patients would require treatment with alemtuzumab to prevent 1 having rejection, assuming a 21% rejection risk with ATG.

Triple maintenance without induction therapy compared to alemtuzumab combined with ESW had similar rates of acute rejection but adverse effects including NODAT were poorly documented. Alemtuzumab plus steroid withdrawal would cause one additional patient experiencing CMV disease for every six patients treated compared to no induction and triple maintenance, in the absence of any clinical benefit. Overall, ATG and alemtuzumab decrease acute rejection at a cost of increased CMV disease while patient‐centred outcomes (reduced death or lower toxicity) do not appear to be improved.

Plain language summary

Polyclonal and monoclonal antibodies for induction therapy in kidney transplant recipients

What is the issue?

A kidney transplant is the best treatment for many people who have severe kidney disease to allow patients to return to work and feel better. Patients who receive a kidney transplant receive drugs to prevent their own body from rejecting the transplant ‐ the aim of treatment is to prolong the function of the kidney transplant while minimising common long‐term side effects of treatment such as cancer, infection, and diabetes. For some patients who have a much higher risk of rejection, additional treatment is given at the time of the operation (which may lower the body's ability to attack the kidney transplant and increase kidney function but can increase the risk of complications such as infection and cancer).

What did we do?

We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant's Specialised Register to 29 August 2016 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing monoclonal or polyclonal antibodies with placebo, no treatment, or other antibody therapy in adults and children who had received a kidney transplant.

What did we find?

We identified 99 studies (265 records; 8956 participants; 33 with contemporary agents). From the available studies in this area, an antibody against human immune cells (ATG) reduces the chances of a patient having a kidney rejection by one‐third, but it is uncertain whether this prolongs the function of the kidney transplant or survival for the patient. ATG significantly increases viral infections including cytomegalovirus. In addition, the effects of ATG treatment on cancer are not well understood. Alemtuzumab is another treatment which has been compared to ATG in patients who have received less or no steroid therapy as part of their transplant treatment. Treatment with alemtuzumab with lower steroid doses or no steroid treatment at all may lower a patient's risk of kidney rejection within a year after transplantation when compared to ATG but overall the information about treatment benefits and harms of alemtuzumab in many clinical situations are not certain. This means we are not confident about the effects of alemtuzumab on kidney function, patient survival or treatment side‐effects.

Conclusions

Overall the available research on antibody treatment for kidney transplantation is limited when clinicians and patients make joint decisions about antibody therapy at the time of a kidney transplant because of the uncertain long term benefits and hazards of these treatments.

Summary of findings

Background

Description of the condition

Kidney transplantation is the treatment of choice for many patients with end‐stage kidney disease (ESKD) but demand exceeds supply from organ donors. Increasing this supply and prolonging kidney transplant survival are therefore important for patients and health systems (Tonelli 2011).

Description of the intervention

Immunosuppressive therapy consists of initial induction and maintenance regimens to prevent rejection. Induction may be defined as treatment with a biologic agent either before, at the time of, or immediately after transplantation to deplete or modulate T cell responses at the time of antigen presentation. Maintenance immunosuppression protocols usually involve three drugs acting on different parts of the T‐cell activation or proliferation cascade: calcineurin inhibitors (CNI) (e.g. cyclosporin (CSA), tacrolimus), antiproliferative agents (e.g. azathioprine, mycophenolate mofetil) and corticosteroids (e.g. prednisolone) (Denton 1999; Hong 2000).

Induction immunosuppression with antibody therapy is now recommended at the time of transplantation for all patients (KDIGO 2009). Antibody therapies are monoclonal or polyclonal, and depleting or non‐depleting of lymphocytes. Non‐depleting interleukin‐2 receptor monoclonal antibodies (IL2Ra) are considered first line but it is suggested that recipients at high risk of rejection (e.g. children, subsequent transplants, certain racial groups such as African‐Americans, and other sensitised patients) should receive lymphocyte‐depleting antibodies. Depleting antibodies are also used for those at risk of delayed graft function to delay the introduction of full dose CNI, which can prolong the duration of acute tubular necrosis (Denton 1999). Depleting antibodies include polyclonal antibodies against the human lymphocyte (antilymphocyte globulin (ALG); antithymocyte globulin (ATG)).

How the intervention might work

Depleting antibodies bind to target immune effector cells leading to complement mediated destruction. Non‐depleting antibodies bind to targets on effector cells preventing their interaction with other cells rendering them ineffective, but do not lead to cell destruction.

Most antibodies used in transplantation have been directed at T cells. Significant reduction in circulating T‐effector cells is rapidly observed, leading to impaired cell mediated immunity (the desired effect to prevent kidney transplant rejection). A number of different preparations of ATG have been produced over the last few decades. These can be broadly divided into horse ATG (hATG), derived from horse serum after immunisation of horses with human thymocytes, and rabbit ATG (rATG), derived from rabbit serum. There are currently two or three standardised preparations available globally. Historical ATG preparations used in early studies were less standardised compared to the preparations currently available. Even though both hATG and rATG contain antibodies to a wide variety of T‐cell antigens and MHC antigens, it is likely that the effects are not equal given that the two types are prepared differently. One study assessing both efficacy and safety clearly showed differences between these two preparations (Brennan 1999).

Monomurab‐CD3 is a murine monoclonal antibody against the CD3 receptor on activated T cells (Orthoclone OKT3) which became available in the late 1980s. OKT3 removes the functional T‐cell population from circulation, producing immunosuppression useful for both induction therapy and the management of acute rejection. However, this profound immunosuppression is associated with immediate toxicity (cytokine release syndrome) and higher rates of infection and malignancy than standard triple therapy (Soulillou 2001). Use of these preparations may also be limited by the development of neutralising antibodies to their xenogeneic components (Kreis 1992). Use of OKT3 for both induction and treatment of acute rejection has declined in many countries over recent years due to the side effect profile. Janssen‐Cilag discontinued the manufacture of OKT3 in 2010 due to a combination of declining sales and evidence from a Cochrane review on treatment of acute rejection confirming that OKT3 was associated with increased side effects compared to newer biologic agents (Webster 2006).

More recently, the IL2Ra basiliximab and daclizumab have been used in the induction phase. IL2Ra are IgG monoclonal antibodies to the interleukin‐2 receptor found only on activated T cells. IL2Ra are more specific immunosuppressants, with no immediate toxicity, and are increasingly used as induction agents, but not for treating acute rejection (Cibrik 2001). These agents are investigated in a separate Cochrane review (Webster 2010) and so will not be considered here.

Other antibodies have also been introduced for kidney transplantation induction such as alemtuzumab. This humanised CD‐52 specific complement fixing monoclonal antibody was first used for induction by Calne 1999. Alemtuzumab causes profound depletion of T‐cells from peripheral blood and also less marked depletion of other mononuclear cells.

Although the majority of current anti‐rejection therapies are targeted at T‐cell mechanisms, there is increasing evidence that B‐cells may have a role due to their ability to act as antigen presenting cells and T‐cell activators (Zand 2007). For this reason the B‐cell depleting anti‐CD20 antibody, rituximab is also being used in kidney transplantation. Initially this was used in studies for ABO‐incompatible kidney transplants at induction (Tyden 2003) but is now being considered for selected patients in some centres. 

Why it is important to do this review

Favoured antibody preparations and rates of use differ from country to country and among transplant units. In 2007 in the USA, 78% of recipients received an antibody preparation as part of induction immunosuppression. Forty five per cent of kidney recipients received ATG, 1% OKT3, 27% IL2Ra and 10% received alemtuzumab (UNOS 2011). In Australia, 93% of patients received an IL2Ra in 2008 and 5% to 10% received an additional or alternative antibody preparation (ANZDATA 2009). There has clearly been an increase in use of antibody induction therapy over the last decade (ANZDATA 2009; UNOS 2011) but there is still a large amount of variability in the type of antibody preparation used. This reflects local policies to some extent but there is also uncertainty, in particular in patients at high risk of rejection, as to whether one agent is superior to another. In patients at higher risk of rejection, increased risk of side effects may be acceptable if a treatment is more effective at reducing the risk of acute rejection, leading to improved rates of allograft and patient survival. 

The aim of this systematic review is to summarise the relative short and long‐term beneficial and adverse effects of different antibody preparations (except IL2Ra) used as induction in kidney transplant recipients. A previous Cochrane review looks at the use of antibodies for treatment of acute rejection episodes (Webster 2006).

Objectives

  • To evaluate the relative and absolute effects of different antibody preparations (except IL2Ra) when used as induction therapy in kidney transplant recipients.

  • To determine how the benefits and adverse events vary for each antibody preparation.

  • To determine how the benefits and harms vary for different formulations of antibody preparation.

  • To determine whether the benefits and harms vary in specific subgroups of recipients (e.g. children and sensitised recipients).

Methods

Criteria for considering studies for this review

Types of studies

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi‐RCTs (RCTs in which allocation to treatment was obtained by alternation, use of alternate medical records, date of birth or other predictable methods) looking at different antibody preparations (except IL2Ra) used as induction in kidney transplant recipients.

Types of participants

Adults and children who are kidney transplant recipients.

Recipients of multi‐organ transplants were excluded from this review.

Types of interventions

We included studies using antibody preparations given in combination with any other immunosuppressive agents for induction therapy.

Exclusions were IL2Ra, as they are the subject of a separate Cochrane Review (Webster 2010). The authors also note that the manufacture of OKT3 was discontinued in January 2010 but have decided to include this agent in the interventions for historical purposes.

We examined the following comparisons.

  • ATG versus placebo/no treatment

  • ATG versus ALG

  • ATG versus a different ATG (e.g. rabbit versus horse)

  • ATG versus monomurab‐CD3

  • ALG versus placebo/no treatment

  • ALG versus monomurab‐CD3

  • Monomurab‐CD3 versus placebo/no treatment

  • Alemtuzumab/anti‐CD52 versus placebo/no treatment

  • Alemtuzumab/anti‐CD52 versus other poly‐ or monoclonal antibody

  • Rituximab/anti‐CD20 versus placebo/no treatment

  • Rituximab/anti‐CD20 versus other poly‐ or monoclonal antibody

  • Other poly‐ or monoclonal antibody versus placebo/no treatment

  • Other poly‐ or monoclonal antibody versus other poly‐ or monoclonal antibody

  • Antibody versus non‐antibody intervention

The 'class effect' of anti‐lymphocyte preparations was initially assumed but differences in formulation were also examined (e.g. rabbit versus horse‐based ATG formulations). All dosage regimens were included and low versus high dose regimens were examined.

Types of outcome measures

Where possible, outcome events were assessed at one, three and six months, and at one, two, three and five years post‐transplantation.

Primary outcomes
  • Death (all cause)

  • Graft loss (defined as dependence on dialysis, graft loss censored for death with a functioning allograft)

  • Graft loss including death with a functioning graft

  • Incidence of acute rejection of kidney (analysed as combined outcome for clinical suspicion, biopsy‐proven and steroid resistant).

Secondary outcomes
  • Kidney allograft function: glomerular filtration rate (GFR), serum creatinine (SCr), creatinine clearance (CrCl), or as defined by authors

  • Incidence of delayed graft function

  • Incidence of bacterial, fungal and viral infectious complications specifically including cytomegalovirus (CMV) (both asymptomatic CMV viraemia and true cases of CMV infection with tissue invasion were analysed as reported by the individual studies) and Polyoma BK virus

  • Incidence of new‐onset diabetes after transplantation (NODAT)

  • Incidence of any malignancy

  • Incidence of post‐transplant lymphoproliferative disorders (PTLD) and lymphoma

  • Incidence of treatment‐related adverse reactions (gastrointestinal, neurological, haematological, biochemical) and recognised syndromes (e.g. serum sickness, cytokine release syndrome).

Search methods for identification of studies

Electronic searches

We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Specialised Register up to 29 August 2016 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. The Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Specialised Register contains studies identified from the following sources

  1. Quarterly searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials CENTRAL

  2. Weekly searches of MEDLINE OVID SP

  3. Handsearching of kidney‐related journals & the proceedings of major kidney conferences

  4. Searching of the current year of EMBASE OVID SP

  5. Weekly current awareness alerts for selected kidney‐journals

  6. Searches of the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal & ClinicalTrials.gov

Studies contained in the Specialised register are identified through search strategies for CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE based on the scope of Cochrane kidney and Transplant. Details of these strategies as well as a list of handsearched journals, conference proceedings and current awareness alerts are available in the 'Specialised Register' section of information about the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant.

See Appendix 1 for search terms used in strategies for this review.

Data collection and analysis

Selection of studies

The search strategy described was used to obtain titles and abstracts of studies that might have been relevant to the review. The titles and abstracts were screened independently by two authors, who discarded studies that were not applicable. However, studies and reviews that might include relevant data or information on studies were retained initially. Two authors independently assessed retrieved abstracts and, if necessary the full text, of these studies to determine which studies satisfy the inclusion criteria.

Data extraction and management

Data extraction was carried out independently by two authors using standard data extraction forms. Studies reported in non‐English language journals were translated before assessment. Where more than one publication of one study existed, records were grouped together and the publication with the most complete data was used in the analyses. Where relevant outcomes were only published in earlier versions these data were used. Any discrepancy between published versions was to be highlighted. Where duplicate publication was suspected authors were contacted for clarification and if duplication was confirmed the initial full publication together with any subsequent publication which adds additional information (e.g. longer term follow‐up data) was included in the review.

Assessment of risk of bias in included studies

The following items were independently assessed by two authors using the risk of bias assessment tool (Higgins 2011) (see Appendix 2).

  • Was there adequate sequence generation (selection bias)?

  • Was allocation adequately concealed (selection bias)?

  • Was knowledge of the allocated interventions adequately prevented during the study?

    • Participants and personnel (performance bias)

    • Outcome assessors(detection bias)

  • Were incomplete outcome data adequately addressed (attrition bias)?

  • Are reports of the study free of suggestion of selective outcome reporting (reporting bias)?

  • Was the study apparently free of other problems that could put it at a risk of bias?

Measures of treatment effect

For dichotomous outcomes (e.g. rejection) results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI).

Where continuous scales of measurement were used to assess the effects of treatment (e.g. CrCl), the mean difference (MD) was used, or the standardised mean difference (SMD) if different scales were used. For count data (such as total number of infections/person‐year of follow‐up) the rate ratio was used. Where time‐to‐event data could not be dichotomised, survival analysis methods were used and the results expressed as hazard ratio (HR).

Where outcomes were not amenable to meta‐analysis, i.e. if reported idiosyncratically (e.g. drug‐related specific adverse reactions), they were tabulated and assessed with descriptive techniques, and the risk difference (RD) with 95% CI was calculated. Quality of life and economic data was analysed using descriptive techniques.

Assessment of heterogeneity

Clinical and methodological heterogeneity was analysed using a Cochran Q test (Chi² with N‐1 degrees of freedom and a P value of 0.05 used for statistical significance) and with the I² test (Higgins 2003). I² values of 25%, 50% and 75% correspond to low, medium and high levels of heterogeneity.

Assessment of reporting biases

Funnel plots were used to assess for the potential existence of small study bias (Higgins 2011).

Data synthesis

Data was pooled using the random effects model (Higgins 2011).

Subgroup analysis and investigation of heterogeneity

Subgroup analysis was used to explore possible clinical sources of heterogeneity.

  • Baseline maintenance immunosuppression

  • Antibody formulation (e.g. rabbit versus horse ATG)

  • Duration and dose of antibody treatment.

'Summary of findings' tables

We have presented the main results of the review in 'Summary of findings' tables. These tables present key information concerning the quality of the evidence, the magnitude of the effects of the interventions examined, and the sum of the available data for the main outcomes (Schünemann 2011a). The 'Summary of findings' tables also include an overall grading of the evidence related to each of the main outcomes using the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach (GRADE 2008). The GRADE approach defines the quality of a body of evidence as the extent to which one can be confident that an estimate of effect or association is close to the true quantity of specific interest. The quality of a body of evidence involves consideration of within‐trial risk of bias (methodological quality), directness of evidence, heterogeneity, precision of effect estimates and risk of publication bias (Schünemann 2011b). We presented the following outcomes in the 'Summary of findings' tables.

  • Death

  • Graft loss

  • Delayed graft function

  • Acute rejection

  • CMV infection

  • Malignancy

  • NODAT

Results

Description of studies

See: Characteristics of included studies; Characteristics of excluded studies; Characteristics of studies awaiting classification; Characteristics of ongoing studies.

Results of the search

After searching the Specialised Register we identified 452 records. After duplicates were removed and titles and abstracts screened we retrieved 285 full‐text articles for further assessment. Of these, 99 studies (268 records) were included and five studies (8 records) were excluded. Three ongoing studies (NCT00733733; NCT01154387; ReMIND Study 2013) were identified, and five studies (NCT00089947; NCT00861536; NCT01046955; NCT01354301; Stevens 2016) were identified prior to publication. These eight studies and will be assessed in a future update of this review (Figure 1).

1.

1

Flow diagram of included and excluded studies.

Included studies

Of the 99 included studies, 92 had data that could be used for meta‐analysis and these combined studies represented a total of 8802 randomised participants. ATG was used in 41 studies, alemtuzumab in 11, OKT3 in 27, ALG in 26, rituximab in 3 and other antibodies in 5 studies.

There were 19 comparisons of an antibody versus placebo or antibody versus other antibody that were studied in a single study only. These are briefly discussed in the text below but have not been meta‐analysed.

Interventions

Number of studies (participants) in included studies by comparison

  ATG ALG Alemtuzumab Rituximab OKT3 Othera Placebo
ATG 9 (513)b 1 (50) 6 (446) 6 (571) 2 (141) 17 (2044)
ALG 3 (254)b 7 (644) 16 (1809)
Alemtuzumab 4 (296)
Rituximab 3 (447)
OKT3 2 (55)b 12 (1184)
Othera 1 (20) 3 (328)

a Includes the following; anti CD2 rat monoclonal antibody, anti CD7 monoclonal antibody, anti‐LFA‐1 monoclonal antibody, anti‐ICAM‐1 monoclonal antibody, rituximab combined with ATG, bortezomib combined with ATG, both rituximab and bortezomib combined with ATG.

b Indicates studies comparing different doses or formulations of same agent.

ATG versus placebo/no treatment

Twelve studies (1491 participants) compared ATG with placebo or no treatment in a CNI‐based regimen (Banhegyi 1991; Charpentier 2002; Kasiske 1997; Khosroshahi 2008; Martins 2004; Mourad 1998; Samsel 1999; Sheashaa 2008; Thibaudin 1998; TRIMS Study 2010; van den Hoogen 2013; Yussim 2000), and a further five studies (553 participants) in a non‐CNI‐based regimen (Cosimi 1976; Diethelm 1979; Kountz 1977; Kreis 1986; Wechter 1979).

Rabbit ATG versus horse ATG

Three studies (155 participants) compared rATG with hATG in a CNI‐based regimen (Bock 1999; Brennan 1999; Rostaing 2010).

ATG versus alemtuzumab

Six studies (446 participants) compared ATG with alemtuzumab. Four studies had early steroid withdrawal (ESW) or steroid minimisation in both arms in a CNI‐based regimen (Farney 2008; Hanaway 2011; Lu 2011; Thomas 2007) and two studies had ESW in the alemtuzumab arm only (Ciancio 2005; Ciancio 2010) and triple maintenance in the ATG groups.

Alemtuzumab versus placebo/no treatment

Four studies (296 participants) compared alemtuzumab with placebo or no treatment. Three of four studies used ESW with either single or double agent maintenance immunosuppression in the alemtuzumab group (CAMPASIA Study 2005; Margreiter 2008; Sharaf El Din 2006) versus triple therapy maintenance in the control group, and one study (Friend 1987) used ESW and single agent CSA maintenance in both groups.

Rituximab versus placebo

Three studies (447 participants) compared rituximab with placebo (Smeekens 2013; Tsai 2012; Tyden 2009).

ATG versus OKT3

Six studies (571 participants) compared ATG with OKT3 (Bock 1995; Cole 1994; Fukuuchi 1996; Kumar 1998a; Perez‐Tamajon 1996; Raffaele 1991). Maintenance immunosuppression was CNI‐based triple therapy and the same in both arms for all six studies.

OKT3 versus placebo/no treatment

Twelve studies (1184 participants) compared OKT3 with placebo or no treatment (Abramowicz 1992; Ackermann 1988; Benfield 1999; Debure 1987; De Pauw 1990; Henry 2001; Kreis 1986; Morales 1994a; Norman 1988; Norman 1993; Shield 1993; Vigeral 1986).

ALG versus OKT3

Six studies (593 participants) compared ALG with OKT3 (Broyer 1993; Frey 1991; Grino 1991; Hanto 1991; Niaudet 1990; Vela 1994).

ALG versus placebo/no treatment

Sixteen studies (1809 participants) compared ALG with placebo or no treatment (Belitsky 1991; Bell 1983; Cantarovich 2008; Condie 1985; Gianello 1987; Grundmann 1984; Halloran 1982; Jakobsen 1981; Grino 1990; Launois 1977; Maiorca 1984; Minnesota Study 1982; Novick 1983; Sansom 1976; Slakey 1993; Taylor 1976).

Other antibodies

Five studies looked at single antibody comparisons each: anti‐CD2 rat monoclonal antibody versus placebo (40 participants, Squifflet 1997), anti‐CD7 monoclonal antibody versus OKT3 (20 participants, Lazarovits 1993), anti‐LFA‐1 monoclonal antibody versus placebo (22 participants, Spillner 1998), anti‐LFA‐1 monoclonal antibody versus ATG (101 participants, Hourmant 1996), and anti‐ICAM‐1 monoclonal antibody versus placebo (266 participants, EARTS Study 1999). One small pilot study compared ATG with 3 other combination induction regimens; ATG + rituximab, ATG + bortezomib; ATG + rituximab + bortezomib (40 participants, Ejaz 2013).

Other comparisons

A further thirteen studies looked at other ATG, OKT3 or ALG comparisons but each of these had only a single study for each comparison. The ATG studies were:

  • Single versus divided dose ATG (142 participants, Stevens 2008)

  • Two versus four doses (same total) of ATG (17 participants, Buchler 2013)

  • rATG Fresenius versus rATG Merieux (90 participants, Norrby 1997)

  • ATG adjusted for CD3 count versus fixed dose (45 participants, Abouna 1995)

  • ATG adjusted for CD3 count versus adjusted for total lymphocyte count (21 participants, Ata 2013)

  • standard versus low dose ATG (43 participants, Grafals 2014)

  • ATG versus ALG (50 participants, Toledo‐Pereyra 1985).

The OKT3 studies were:

The remaining ALG studies were:

  • Low versus high dose (83 participants, Sakhrani 1992)

  • Low potency versus high potency ALG (71 participants, Thomas 1977)

  • Fourteen versus 7 days induction (100 participants, Grundmann 1987).

Reported outcome measures

The reporting of outcome measures was variable across studies: 83 reported patient death, 70 reported all‐cause graft loss and 24 death‐censored graft loss while 84 reported acute rejection and 42 reported delayed graft function (see Figure 1). Acute rejection was reported in a further seven studies but could not be used in meta‐analysis as rejection was either reported without actual figures or reported as total number of episodes rather than number of participants. Graft function was reported at a variety of time points in 33 studies. Some studies reporting graft function could not be included in meta‐analysis as there was no SD or SE reported. Reporting of harms was more limited and inconsistent among studies. Participants with any serious infection were reported in 61 (66%) studies, however a further 7 studies also assessed infection, but expressed their results as ‘infectious episodes’, or reported no actual figures and so this data could not be easily meaningfully combined. CMV infection was reported in 35 studies and BKV infection in only 7 studies. Malignancy and PTLD were reported in only 30 studies and NODAT in 12. Haematological effects were reported in very few studies; 16 reported leucopenia and 12 thrombocytopenia. Very small numbers of studies reported other adverse outcomes including serum sickness, tremor, headache, chronic allograft nephropathy (on biopsy) and failure to complete induction therapy.

Excluded studies

Five studies were excluded (Alloway 1993; Kirsch 2006; Kumar 2002b; NCT00000936; NCT01312064). The reasons for exclusion were:

Risk of bias in included studies

Reporting of details of study methodology was incomplete for the majority of studies. Details are summarised in Figure 2 and Figure 3.

2.

2

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.

3.

3

Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.

Allocation

Twenty studies reported adequate sequence generation, and 27 reported adequate allocation concealment. Five studies used inadequate methods of sequence generation and four used inadequate allocation concealment. The remainder (74 studies for sequence generation and 68 for allocation concealment) used unclear methodology.

Blinding

Seventy‐six studies adequately reported blinding of participants and personnel, and 54 studies adequately reported blinding of outcome assessment. Two studies had inadequate blinding of participants and personnel and six studies had inadequate blinding of outcome assessment. The remainder had unclear methods.

Incomplete outcome data

Incomplete outcome data was adequately addressed in 68 studies, and inadequately in eight studies. The remainder were unclear.

Selective reporting

Forty‐five studies were free of selective reporting, 43 studies were inadequate, while the remainder of studies were unclear.

Other potential sources of bias

Thirteen studies declared their funding source to be independent or academic funding body, and so were judged free of other potential biases. Twenty‐eight studies were deemed to be high risk of other bias due to funding from a pharmaceutical company or author links to industry or other reasons not covered by above bias assessments. Others did not disclose the funding source of the study or gave limited information about funding and were judged unclear.

Effects of interventions

See: Table 1; Table 2

for the main comparison.

ATG compared with placebo or no induction for kidney transplant recipients
Patient or population: kidney transplant recipients
Settings:
Intervention: ATG
Comparison: placebo/no treatment
Outcomes Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) Relative effect
 (95% CI) No of participants
 (studies) Quality of the evidence
 (GRADE) Comments
Assumed risk Corresponding risk
Placebo/no treatment ATG
Death (including CNI)
Follow‐up: median 24 months (IQR 12‐24)
Medium risk population RR 0.75
(0.27 to 2.06)
632 (5) ⊕⊕⊝⊝
 low1,2  
31 per 1000 23 per 1000 
 (8 to 64)
All‐cause graft loss (including CNI)
Follow‐up: median 1 year (IQR 12‐24)
Medium risk population RR 0.65
(0.36 to 1.19)
549 (3) ⊕⊕⊝⊝
 low1,2  
109 per 1000 71 per 1000 
 (39 to 129)
Delayed graft function
Follow‐up: N/A (immediate)
Medium risk population RR 0.93 (0.78 to 1.10) 1304 (9) ⊕⊕⊝⊝
 low1,2  
283 per 1000 263 per 1000 
 (221 to 311)
Acute rejection (including CNI)
Follow‐up: median 1 year (IQR 6‐24)
Medium risk population RR 0.61
(0.49 to 0.76)
1491 (12) ⊕⊕⊕⊝
 moderate1  
365 per 1000 222 per 1000 
 (179 to 277)
Infection: CMV infection
Follow‐up: median 1 year (IQR 4.5‐13.5)
Medium risk population RR 1.55
(1.24 to 1.95)
1072 (6) ⊕⊕⊕⊝
 moderate1  
176 per 1000 273 per 1000 
 (218 to 343)
Malignancy
Follow‐up: median 18 months (IQR 12‐60)
Medium risk population RR 0.94
(0.30 to 2.94)
891 (7) ⊕⊕⊝⊝
 low1,2,3  
15 per 1000 14 per 1000 
 (5 to 44)
*The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).
 CI: Confidence interval: RR: Risk Ratio; IQR: interquartile range.
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
 High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.
 Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.
 Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.
 Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.

1 At risk of selection bias as more than 50% of studies rated as allocation concealment and/or random sequence generation unclear or high risk of causing bias.

2 Confidence interval includes range of plausible values below clinical significance or including harm.

3Based on few events across all studies.

2.

Alemtuzumab plus ESW or steroid minimisation versus ATG for induction therapy for kidney transplant recipients
Patient or population: kidney transplant recipients
Settings:
Intervention: alemtuzumab plus ESW or steroid minimisation
Comparison: ATG ± ESW or steroid minimisation
Outcomes Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) Relative effect
 (95% CI) No of participants
 (studies) Quality of the evidence
 (GRADE) Comments
Assumed risk Corresponding risk
ATG Alemtuzumab
Death (ESW both arms)
Follow‐up: median 1 year (IQR 12‐36)
Medium risk population RR 0.27 (0.07 to 1.06) 180 (3) ⊕⊕⊝⊝
 low1,2  
102 per 1000 27 per 1000 
 (7 to 108)
All‐cause graft loss (ESW both arms)
Follow‐up: median 18 months (IQR 12‐30)
Medium risk population RR 0.60
(0.34 to 1.08)
360 (4) ⊕⊕⊝⊝
 low1,2  
148 per 1000 89 per 1000 
 (50 to 160)
Acute rejection (ESW both arms)
Follow‐up: median 18 months (IQR 12‐30)
Medium risk population RR 0.57
(0.35 to 0.93)
360 (4) ⊕⊕⊕⊝
 moderate1  
208 per 1000 119 per 1000 
 (73 to 193)
Biopsy‐proven CAN (ESW with alemtuzumab only)
Follow‐up: median 30 months (IQR 24‐36)
Medium risk population RR 2.45
(1.02 to 5.94)
86 (2) ⊕⊕⊝⊝
 low1,2  
116 per 1000 284 per 1000 
 (118 to 689)
CMV infection (all studies)
Follow‐up: median 30 months
(IQR 24‐36)
Medium risk population RR 1.08
(0.46 to 2.56)
225 (3) ⊕⊕⊝⊝
 low1,2  
80 per 1000 86 per 1000 
 (37 to 205)
NODAT (ESW alemtuzumab only)
Follow‐up: median 30 months (IQR 24‐36)
Medium risk population RR 0.41
(0.12 to 1.40)
69 (2) ⊕⊕⊝⊝
 low1,2  
237 per 1000 97 per 1000 
 (28 to 332)
Malignancy (all studies)
Follow‐up: median 36 months (IQR 12‐36)
Medium risk population RR 4.93
(0.59 to 41.11)
187 (3) ⊕⊝⊝⊝
 very low1,2,3 All reported events from single study (other 2 studies reported 0 events)
11 per 1000 54 per 1000 
 (6 to 452)
*The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).
 CI: Confidence interval: RR: Risk Ratio; IQR: interquartile range.
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
 High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.
 Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.
 Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.
 Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.

1 At risk of selection bias as more than 50% of studies rated as allocation concealment and/or random sequence generation unclear or high risk of causing bias.

2 Confidence interval includes range of plausible values below clinical significance or including harm.

3Based on few events across all studies.

ATG versus placebo/no induction treatment

ATG had little or no effect on death at 1 to 2 years compared to placebo or no treatment in older studies without CNI maintenance (Analysis 1.1.3 (6 studies, 621 participants): RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.22; I2 = 0%) and uncertain effect in more contemporary studies including CNI maintenance (Analysis 1.1.2 (5 studies, 632 participants): RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.27 to 2.06; I2 = 0%). In the CNI studies, there was also uncertain effect on death at 3 to 6 months (Analysis 1.1.1 (3 studies, 523 participants): RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.22; I2 = 0%) and at 5 years (Analysis 1.1.4 (2 studies, 159 participants): RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.11 to 7.81; I2 = 48%).

1.1. Analysis.

Comparison 1 ATG versus placebo/no treatment, Outcome 1 Death.

Treatment with ATG had uncertain effect on all‐cause graft loss in CNI studies at 3 to 6 months (Analysis 1.2.1 (4 studies, 638 participants): RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.05; I2 = 0%), at 1 to 2 years (Analysis 1.2.2 (3 studies, 549 participants): RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.19; I2 = 6%) and at 5 years (Analysis 1.2.4 (2 studies, 159 participants): RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.62 to 2.05; I2 = 0%). However, ATG reduced graft loss in the non‐CNI studies at 1 to 2 years (Analysis 1.2.3 (4 studies, 500 participants): RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.01; I2 = 50%). When CNI and non‐CNI studies were combined, ATG reduced all‐cause graft loss at 1 to 2 years (Analysis 1.2.5 (7 studies, 1049 participants): RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.95; I2 = 35%).

1.2. Analysis.

Comparison 1 ATG versus placebo/no treatment, Outcome 2 Graft loss (all cause).

Death‐censored graft loss was reduced at 1 to 2 years in non‐CNI studies (Analysis 1.3.2 (6 studies, 299 participants): RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.78; I2 = 0%) but there was uncertain effect in CNI studies at 2 years (Analysis 1.3.1 (2 studies, 82 participants): RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.75; I2 = 0%) and at 5 years (Analysis 1.3.3 (2 studies, 148 participants): RR 1.64, 95% CI 0.20 to 13.18; I2 = 71%). Again, if CNI and non‐CNI studies were combined then death censored graft loss was significantly reduced with ATG at 1 to 2 years (Analysis 1.3.4 (8 studies, 381 participants): RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.77; I2 = 0%).

1.3. Analysis.

Comparison 1 ATG versus placebo/no treatment, Outcome 3 Graft loss (death censored).

ATG prevented acute rejection (Analysis 1.4 (17 studies, 2044 participants): RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.78; I2 = 65%). The relative reduction in risk of rejection was similar in studies including CNI maintenance (Analysis 1.4.1 (12 studies, 1491 participants): RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.76; I2 = 35%) compared to non‐CNI studies (Analysis 1.4.2 (5 studies, 553 participants): RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.98; I2 = 73%) (P = 0.79; I2 = 0% for subgroup analysis).

1.4. Analysis.

Comparison 1 ATG versus placebo/no treatment, Outcome 4 Acute rejection.

ATG had little or no effect on delayed graft function (Analysis 1.5 (9 studies, 1304 participants): RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.10; I2 = 0%).

1.5. Analysis.

Comparison 1 ATG versus placebo/no treatment, Outcome 5 Delayed graft function.

ATG increased CMV infection (Analysis 1.6.2 (6 studies, 1072 participants): RR 1.55, CI 1.24 to 1.95; I2 = 0%) but had uncertain effects on all‐cause viral infection (Analysis 1.6.4 (3 studies, 197 participants): RR 1.38, 95% CI 0.56 to 3.39; I2 = 46%) and bacterial infection (Analysis 1.6.5 (5 studies, 775 participants): RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.37; I2 = 0%).

1.6. Analysis.

Comparison 1 ATG versus placebo/no treatment, Outcome 6 Infection.

Leucopenia (Analysis 1.7 (4 studies, 920 participants): RR 3.86, 95% CI 2.79 to 5.34; I2 = 0%) and thrombocytopenia (Analysis 1.8 (4 studies, 848 participants): RR 2.41, 95% CI 1.61 to 3.61; I2 = 0%) were both increased by ATG.

1.7. Analysis.

Comparison 1 ATG versus placebo/no treatment, Outcome 7 Leucopenia.

1.8. Analysis.

Comparison 1 ATG versus placebo/no treatment, Outcome 8 Thrombocytopenia.

ATG had uncertain effects on both early malignancy at 1 to 2 years (Analysis 1.9.1 (3 studies, 611 participants): RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.22 to 3.94; I2 = 0%) and on late malignancy at 5 years (Analysis 1.9.2 (2 studies, 159 participants): RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.14 to 6.23; I2 = 0%). The single study (151 participants) that reported PTLD had no events at 1 year in either arm (Analysis 1.9).

1.9. Analysis.

Comparison 1 ATG versus placebo/no treatment, Outcome 9 Malignancy or PTLD.

ATG had uncertain effect on development of NODAT (Analysis 1.10.1 (6 studies, 935 participants): RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.84; I2 = 39%).

1.10. Analysis.

Comparison 1 ATG versus placebo/no treatment, Outcome 10 Other adverse outcomes.

There was no difference in SCr at 6 months (Analysis 1.11.1 (2 studies, 503 participants): MD ‐5.34 µmol/L, 95% CI ‐13.44 to 2.75; I2 = 0%), 1 year (Analysis 1.11.2 (2 studies, 222 participants): MD ‐10.56 µmol/L, 95% CI ‐21.81 to 0.69) or 5 years (Analysis 1.11.5 (1 study, 55 participants): MD ‐32.70 µmol/L, 95% CI ‐68.98 to 3.58) following ATG therapy in studies including CNI maintenance. There was also no difference in SCr at 1 year in the single non CNI study that assessed graft function (Turcotte 1973). Graft function measured by eGFR was only assessed in one study (Sheashaa 2008) and was similar between treatment groups at 5 years (1 study, 71 participants: MD 4.80 mL/min, 95% CI ‐2.57 to 12.17).

1.11. Analysis.

Comparison 1 ATG versus placebo/no treatment, Outcome 11 Serum creatinine.

Rabbit ATG versus horse ATG

There was sparse data for meta‐analyses comparing rATG versus hATG. rATG had uncertain effects on death at 1 year (Analysis 2.1.1 (2 studies, 139 participants): RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.07 to 2.30; I2 = 0%) and on long‐term death at 10 years (Analysis 2.2.2 (1 study, 72 participants): RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.59) compared to hATG. The effect on all‐cause graft loss was also uncertain at both 1 year (Analysis 2.1.3 (2 studies, 139 participants: RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.27; I2 = 14%) and at 10 years (Analysis 2.1.4 (1 study, 72 participants: RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.58).

2.1. Analysis.

Comparison 2 Rabbit ATG versus horse ATG, Outcome 1 Main outcomes.

2.2. Analysis.

Comparison 2 Rabbit ATG versus horse ATG, Outcome 2 Other adverse outcomes.

rATG prevented acute rejection (2 studies, 88 participants: RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.76) compared to hATG although one study reported no events (Rostaing 2010).

Single studies reported uncertain effects of rATG compared to hATG with respect to delayed graft function (Rostaing 2010) (Analysis 2.1.7, 16 participants: RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.06 to 4.47), all‐cause infection (Rostaing 2010) (Analysis 2.2.1, 16 participants: RR 1.67, 95% CI 0.59 to 4.73), and malignancy (Brennan 1999) (Analysis 2.2.4, 72 participants: RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.35).

Brennan 1999 reported CMV disease was reduced with rATG at 1 year (Analysis 2.2.2, 72 participants: RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.96), more leucopenia with rATG compared to hATG (analysis 2.2.3, 72 participants: RR 13.50, 95% CI 1.95 to 93.46), and graft function was better at 10 years with a lower SCr in the hATG group (Analysis 2.3, 35 participants: MD 44.0 µmol/L, 95% CI 20.41 to 67.59).

2.3. Analysis.

Comparison 2 Rabbit ATG versus horse ATG, Outcome 3 Serum creatinine.

Alemtuzumab versus ATG

The effects of alemtuzumab (with ESW or minimisation) compared to ATG on death were uncertain both at 1 year (Analysis 3.1.1 (2 studies, 41 participants): RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.06 to 2.42; I2 = 0%) and at 2 to 3 years (Analysis 3.1.2 (3 studies, 225 participants): RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.95; I2 = 33%). Similarly, alemtuzumab had uncertain effect on all‐cause graft loss at 1 year (Analysis 3.1.3 (2 studies, 41 participants): RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.30; I2 = 0%) and at 2 to 3 years (Analysis 3.1.4 (3 studies, 379 participants): RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.47 to 2.06; I2 = 42%) and on death‐censored graft loss at 1 year (Analysis 3.1.5 (2 studies, 37 participants): RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.81; I2 = 0%) and at 2 to 3 years (Analysis 3.1.6 (2 studies, 186 participants): RR 2.45, 95% CI 0.67 to 8.97; I2 = 17%) compared to ATG. There was also uncertain effect of alemtuzumab versus ATG on delayed graft function (Analysis 3.1.7 (2 studies, 86 participants): RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.13 to 3.07; I2 = 0%).

3.1. Analysis.

Comparison 3 Alemtuzumab + early steroid withdrawal (ESW) or minimisation versus ATG ± ESW, Outcome 1 Death and graft loss.

Alemtuzumab had uncertain effect on acute rejection in the first 6 months (Analysis 3.2.1 (3 studies, 341 participants): RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.30; I2 = 32%) and at 1 year or more (Analysis 3.2.2 (6 studies, 446 participants: RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.05; I2 = 0%). Two of these 6 studies favoured ATG (Ciancio 2005; Ciancio 2010) while the other four favoured alemtuzumab (Farney 2008; Hanaway 2011; Lu 2011; Thomas 2007). This difference may be explained by ESW in the alemtuzumab group but not the ATG group in two studies (Ciancio 2005; Ciancio 2010), compared to ESW in both arms in the other four studies. Subgroup analysis of these four studies showed acute rejection was reduced at 1 year and beyond by alemtuzumab compared to ATG in studies with ESW in both arms (Analysis 3.2.3 (4 studies, 360 participants: RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.93; I2 = 0%) (test for subgroup differences, P = 0.13). Subgroup analysis of the two studies with alemtuzumab plus ESW versus ATG and steroid continuation showed the effect of alemtuzumab and ESW on acute rejection at 1 year was uncertain (Analysis 3.2.4 (2 studies, 86 participants): RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.50 to 3.19; I2 = 0%). The results of all outcomes other than acute rejection were not significantly altered when subgroup analysis was done including only studies with steroid avoidance in both the alemtuzumab and ATG arms.

3.2. Analysis.

Comparison 3 Alemtuzumab + early steroid withdrawal (ESW) or minimisation versus ATG ± ESW, Outcome 2 Rejection.

There was an increased rate of chronic allograft nephropathy (CAN) on biopsy with alemtuzumab plus ESW but this was only assessed in the 2 studies that had triple maintenance immunosuppression in the ATG arms (Analysis 3.2.5 (2 studies, 86 participants): RR 2.64, 95% CI 1.09 to 6.36; I2 = 0%). The classification of CAN is a historical one, present in the original Banff 1997 diagnostic categories (Racusen 1999) but removed in the 2005 update (Solez 2007).

Alemtuzumab had uncertain effect on all‐cause infection (Analysis 3.3.1 (4 studies, 247 participants): RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.41; I2 = 0%), CMV infection (Analysis 3.3.2 (3 studies, 225 participants): RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.46 to 2.56; I2 = 0%), and BKV infection (Analysis 3.3.3 (2 studies, 86 participants: RR 3.00 95% CI 0.13 to 70.83; I2 = 0%), when compared to ATG.

3.3. Analysis.

Comparison 3 Alemtuzumab + early steroid withdrawal (ESW) or minimisation versus ATG ± ESW, Outcome 3 Infection.

Risk of leucopenia was assessed in one study (Ciancio 2005) and was increased at one month with alemtuzumab compared to ATG (Analysis 3.4.1 (60 participants): RR 21.00, 95% CI 1.29 to 342.93) but not at two years (Analysis 3.4.2 (53 participants): RR 3.12, 95% CI 0.13 to 70.83).

3.4. Analysis.

Comparison 3 Alemtuzumab + early steroid withdrawal (ESW) or minimisation versus ATG ± ESW, Outcome 4 Other adverse effects.

The effect of alemtuzumab plus ESW and dual maintenance (tacrolimus and mycophenolate) versus ATG and triple maintenance (CNI, steroid and either azathioprine or mycophenolate) on NODAT was uncertain (Analysis 3.4.3 (2 studies, 69 participants): RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.40; I2 = 0%).

There was uncertain effect of alemtuzumab compared to ATG for other harms including malignancy (Analysis 3.4.4 (3 studies, 187 participants): RR 4.93, 95% CI 0.59 to 41.11), PTLD (Analysis 3.4.5 (2 studies, 165 participants): no events), cytokine release syndrome (Analysis 3.4.6 (1 study, 22 participants): RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.74), or occurrence of any serious adverse event (Analysis 3.4.7 (1 study, 139 participants): RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.12).

Graft function measured by CrCl was lower with alemtuzumab plus ESW and dual maintenance at six months (Analysis 3.5.1 (2 studies, 83 participants): MD ‐13.35 mL/min, 95% CI ‐23.91 to ‐2.80; I2 = 0%) and two years (Analysis 3.5.2 (2 studies, 77 participants): MD ‐12.86 mL/min, 95% CI ‐23.73 to ‐2.00; I2 = 0%) compared to ATG plus triple maintenance.

3.5. Analysis.

Comparison 3 Alemtuzumab + early steroid withdrawal (ESW) or minimisation versus ATG ± ESW, Outcome 5 Creatinine clearance.

Alemtuzumab (and ESW) versus no induction

Three of the four studies used triple maintenance immunosuppression including steroids in the control group (CAMPASIA Study 2005; Margreiter 2008; Sharaf El Din 2006), Friend 1987 used only CSA. Sensitivity analyses excluding Friend 1987 did not significantly alter the summary risk ratio for any outcomes for the remaining studies. Results are therefore reported including all four studies.

Alemtuzumab and ESW had uncertain effect on death (Analysis 4.1.1 (4 studies, 296 participants): RR 1.54, 95% CI 0.60 to 4.00; I2 = 0%) and all‐cause graft loss (Analysis 4.1.2 (4 studies, 296 participants): RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.59; I2 = 0%) at 6 to 12 months compared to no induction.

4.1. Analysis.

Comparison 4 Alemtuzumab + early steroid withdrawal (ESW) versus no induction, Outcome 1 Main outcomes.

Alemtuzumab and ESW had little or no effect on acute rejection within 6 months compared with no induction (Analysis 4.1.3 (3 studies, 213 participants): RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.08; I2 = 0%) and had uncertain effect at 1 year or later (Analysis 4.1.4 (4 studies, 244 participants): RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.87; I2 = 32%).

CAMPASIA Study 2005 showed uncertain effects of alemtuzumab on delayed graft function (Analysis 4.1.5 (30 participants): RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.26 to 15.62)

The risk of CMV infection was increased with alemtuzumab (Analysis 4.2.1 (2 studies, 161 participants): RR 2.28, 95% CI 1.18 to 4.40; I2 = 0%) compared with control.

4.2. Analysis.

Comparison 4 Alemtuzumab + early steroid withdrawal (ESW) versus no induction, Outcome 2 Other adverse outcomes.

The effect of alemtuzumab was imprecise for all‐cause infection (Analysis 4.2.2 (3 studies, 213 participants): RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.46 to 2.89; I2 = 71%), NODAT (Analysis 4.2.3 (2 studies, 161 participants): RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.13 to 2.46; I2 = 0%), and thrombocytopenia (Analysis 4.2.4 (1 study, 30 participants): RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.45 to 3.96). Malignancy and PTLD were assessed in CAMPASIA Study 2005 and there were no events reported in either group.

There was little or no effect on graft function measured by SCr with alemtuzumab and ESW compared to no induction both at 6 months (Analysis 4.3.1 (1 study, 27 participants): MD ‐5.00 µmol/L, 95% CI ‐28.90 to 18.90) and 1 year (Analysis 4.3.2 (2 studies, 108 participants): MD ‐2.89 µmol/L, 95% CI ‐43.29 to 37.52; I2 = 0%).

4.3. Analysis.

Comparison 4 Alemtuzumab + early steroid withdrawal (ESW) versus no induction, Outcome 3 Serum creatinine.

Rituximab versus placebo

Only death and acute rejection were reported in all three studies comparing rituximab versus placebo.

Rituximab had uncertain effect on death both at 6 months (Analysis 5.1.1 (3 studies, 447 participants): RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.71; I2 = 0%) and at 3 to 4 years (Analysis 5.1.2 (2 studies, 381 participants): RR 2.06, 95% CI 0.27 to 15.64; I2 = 74%) when compared to placebo.

5.1. Analysis.

Comparison 5 Rituximab versus placebo, Outcome 1 Main outcomes.

There was uncertain effects of rituximab on all‐cause graft loss (Analysis 5.1.3 (2 studies, 416 participants): RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.28; I2 = 0%) and death‐censored graft loss (Analysis 5.1.4 (2 studies, 405 participants): RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.46; I2 = 0%) at 6 months.

Acute rejection was not reduced at 6 months with rituximab compared to placebo (Analysis 5.1.5 (3 studies, 447 participants): RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.10; I2 = 0%).

Leucopenia at 6 months was increased (Analysis 5.2.4 (2 studies, 416 participants): RR 8.15, 95% CI 2.00 to 33.15; I2 = 21%) with rituximab compared to placebo.

5.2. Analysis.

Comparison 5 Rituximab versus placebo, Outcome 2 Other adverse outcomes.

The effect of rituximab on CMV infection, BKV infection, fungal infection and malignancy was also uncertain (Analysis 5.2).

There was little or no effect of rituximab on graft function (eGFR) at 6 months (Analysis 5.3 (2 studies, 388 participants): MD 0.32 mL/min, 95% CI ‐3.34 to 3.97; I2 = 0%).

5.3. Analysis.

Comparison 5 Rituximab versus placebo, Outcome 3 Graft function at 6 months (eGFR).

ATG versus OKT3

ATG had uncertain effect on death at 6 to 12 months compared with OKT3 (Analysis 6.1.1 (5 studies, 451 participants): RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.64 to 2.60; I2 = 0%) and no effect on death‐censored graft loss at 6 to 12 months (Analysis 6.1.2 (5 studies, 439 participants): RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.57; I2 = 0%).

6.1. Analysis.

Comparison 6 ATG versus OKT3, Outcome 1 Main outcomes.

There was little or no effect on acute rejection with ATG compared to OKT3 at 1 year (Analysis 6.1.3 (4 studies, 450 participants): RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.09; I2 = 67%) and on delayed graft function (Analysis 6.1.4 (3 studies, 235 participants): RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.24; I2 = 0%).

ATG had no effect compared to OKT3 on CMV infection (Analysis 6.2.1 (3 studies, 274 participants): RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.46; I2 = 4%) and uncertain effects on bacterial infection (Analysis 6.2.2 (1 study, 50 participants): RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.32), leucopenia (Analysis 6.2.3 (1 study, 104 participants): RR 1.92, 95% CI 0.78 to 4.74), thrombocytopenia (Analysis 6.2.4 (1 study, 104 participants): RR 4.81, 95% CI 0.24 to 97.91), and the inability to complete induction due to side effects (Analysis 6.2.6 (2 studies, 131 participants): RR 1.96, 95% CI 0.10 to 39.72; I2 = 50%). Malignancy was only reported in Bock 1995 and there were no events reported in either group (Analysis 6.2.5).

6.2. Analysis.

Comparison 6 ATG versus OKT3, Outcome 2 Other adverse outcomes.

Bock 1995 reported ATG had uncertain effects compared to OKT3 on graft function at 1 year (SCr) (Analysis 6.3 (88 participants): MD 0.00 µmol/L, 95% CI ‐3.56 to 3.56).

6.3. Analysis.

Comparison 6 ATG versus OKT3, Outcome 3 Serum creatinine at 1 year.

OKT3 versus placebo/no treatment

A reduction in death was seen with OKT3 compared to no induction at 1 to 2 years (Analysis 7.1.1 (6 studies, 491 participants): RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.97; I2 = 0%) but the benefit was uncertain at 3 to 5 years (Analysis 7.1.2 (5 studies, 768 participants): RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.44; I2 = 38%).

7.1. Analysis.

Comparison 7 OKT3 versus placebo/no induction, Outcome 1 Main outcomes.

The effect of OKT3 compared to no induction on graft loss was uncertain both at 1 to 2 years (Analysis 7.1.3 (7 studies, 416 participants): RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.02; I2 = 0%) and at 3 to 5 years (Analysis 7.1.4 (5 studies, 768 participants): RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.14; I2 = 65%).

Acute rejection was decreased with OKT3 compared to no induction for CNI studies (Analysis 7.1.5 (8 studies, 968 participants): RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.83; I2 = 79%) but the effect was uncertain in non CNI studies (Analysis 7.1.6 (3 studies, 85 participants): RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.46; I2 = 86%).

The effect of OKT3 compared to placebo on delayed graft function was uncertain (Analysis 7.1.7 (6 studies, 494 participants): RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.65; I2 = 63%)

Abramowicz 1992 showed an increased risk of all‐cause infection with OKT3 (Analysis 7.2.1 (108 participants): RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.82). OKT3 had uncertain effects on all other infection subtypes including bacterial infection (Analysis 7.2.2 (3 studies, 366 participants): RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.34; I2 = 0%), all‐cause viral infection (Analysis 7.2.3 (2 studies, 353 participants: RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.37; I2 = 0%), CMV infection (Analysis 7.2.4 (3 studies, 332 participants): RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.82 to 2.84; I2 = 0%), Herpes Simplex virus infection (Analysis 7.2.5 (1 study, 215 participants): RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.89 to 2.38), and fungal infection (Analysis 7.2.6 (3 studies, 568 participants): RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.33 to 4.89; I2 = 68%).

7.2. Analysis.

Comparison 7 OKT3 versus placebo/no induction, Outcome 2 Other adverse effects.

The effect of OKT3 compared to placebo on malignancy and PTLD was uncertain (Analysis 7.2.7 (3 studies, 610 participants): RR 1.34, 95% CI 0.52 to 3.50; I2 = 0%).

There was no difference in graft function measured by SCr with OKT3 compared to placebo both at 3 months (Analysis 7.3.1 (3 studies, 226 participants): MD ‐0.93 µmol/L, 95% CI ‐15.78 to 13.93; I2 = 0%) and at 1 year (Analysis 7.3.2 (2 studies, 261 participants): MD ‐6.22 µmol/L, 95% CI ‐18.21 to 5.76; I2 = 0%). The effect on graft function at 3 to 4 years was uncertain with only 2 studies reporting for a total of 38 participants at this time point (Analysis 7.3.3 (2 studies, 38 participants): ‐21.10 µmol/L, 95% CI ‐49.81 to 7.61; I2 = 60%).

7.3. Analysis.

Comparison 7 OKT3 versus placebo/no induction, Outcome 3 Serum creatinine.

ALG versus OKT3

ALG had uncertain effects on death at 1 to 2 years (Analysis 8.1.1 (3 studies, 300 participants): RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.62 to 6.47; I2 = 0%) and 3 years (Analysis 8.1.2 (2 studies, 265 participants): RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.13 to 8.09; I2 = 41%) and also uncertain effect on all‐cause graft loss at 1 to 2 years (Analysis 8.1.3 (3 studies, 300 participants): RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.80; I2 = 18%) and 3 years (Analysis 8.1.4 (2 studies, 265 participants): RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.70 ; I2 = 0%) compared with OKT3.

8.1. Analysis.

Comparison 8 ALG versus OKT3, Outcome 1 Main outcomes.

There was little or no effect on acute rejection with ALG compared to OKT3 (Analysis 8.1.5 (6 studies, 593 participants): RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.13; I2 = 0%).

Delayed graft function was less with ALG compared to OKT3 (Analysis 8.1.6 (3 studies, 310 participants): RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.99; I2 = 0%)

ALG had uncertain effect on CMV infection (Analysis 8.2.1 (4 studies, 431 participants): RR 1.53, 95% CI 0.82 to 2.85; I2 = 57%) and all other infection outcomes (Analysis 8.2).

8.2. Analysis.

Comparison 8 ALG versus OKT3, Outcome 2 Other adverse outcomes.

ALG treatment was associated with lower SCr values at 1 year (Analysis 8.3.1 (2 studies, 245 participants): MD ‐15.85 µmol/L, 95% CI ‐28.55 to ‐3.15; I2 = 0%) but this was not sustained at 2 years (Analysis 8.3.2 (2 studies, 223 participants): MD 12.50 µmol/L, 95% CI ‐13.52 to 38.52; I2 = 59%).

8.3. Analysis.

Comparison 8 ALG versus OKT3, Outcome 3 Serum creatinine.

ALG versus placebo/no treatment

ALG had little or no effect on all‐cause death or all‐cause graft loss at any time point after transplantation compared to placebo or no induction (Analysis 9.1).

9.1. Analysis.

Comparison 9 ALG versus placebo/no induction, Outcome 1 Main outcomes.

Acute rejection was prevented with ALG compared to placebo or no induction (Analysis 9.1.7 (13 studies, 1575 participants): RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.92; I2 = 87%) and ALG reduced delayed graft function (Analysis 9.1.8 (5 studies, 615 participants): RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.97; I2 = 73%).

ALG markedly increased both CMV infection (Analysis 9.2.1 (3 studies, 289 participants): RR 2.45, 95% CI 1.23 to 4.85; I2 = 0%) and all‐cause viral infections (Analysis 9.2.2 (2 studies, 324 participants): RR 2.71, 95% CI 1.86 to 3.95; I2 = 0%), and may increase bacterial infection rates (Analysis 9.2.3 (4 studies, 742 participants): RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.52; I2 = 43%). The treatment effect on fungal infection rates was uncertain (Analysis 9.2.4 (1 study, 230 participants): RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.95).

9.2. Analysis.

Comparison 9 ALG versus placebo/no induction, Outcome 2 Other adverse outcomes.

ALG markedly increased thrombocytopenia (Analysis 9.2.5 (1 study, 67 participants): RR 12.19, 95% CI 3.10 to 47.92) and leucopenia (Analysis 9.2.6 (2 studies, 297 participants): RR 20.31, 95% CI 0.61 to 676.54; I2 = 83%). ALG had uncertain effects on malignancy or PTLD (Analysis 9.2.7 (4 studies, 623 participants): RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.31; I2 = 0%) and NODAT (Analysis 9.2.8 (1 study, 105 participants): RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.22 to 3.93).

ALG had uncertain effect on both early graft function at 1‐2 years and long term graft function at 10‐20 years compared to placebo or no induction (Analysis 9.3).

9.3. Analysis.

Comparison 9 ALG versus placebo/no induction, Outcome 3 Serum creatinine.

Other studies

The remainder of comparisons (Figure 1) involved only a single study and therefore could not be used for meta‐analysis. The results are summarised briefly below.

Dose comparisons

Stevens 2008 assessed single versus divided dose ATG. There were no differences in any reported outcomes. Abouna 1995 compared ATG adjusted for the CD3 count with fixed dose ATG and again there was no difference in outcomes. One very small study by Ata 2013 compared ATG with dose adjusted by CD3 count compared to dose adjusted for total lymphocyte count and there was no difference in outcomes. Grafals 2014 compared 'standard' dose ATG (3.75 mg/kg total) with low dose ATG (2.25 mg/kg total) and found no significant difference in outcomes. Another very small study by Buchler 2013 compared a split of four versus two doses of ATG (same total dose of 6 mg/kg) and found no difference in outcomes. Two studies compared different OKT3 dose regimens: standard versus low dose (Norman 1993a) and standard versus high dose (Abramowicz 1994). There were no significant differences in either of these small studies. Low versus high dose ALG was also assessed in Sakhrani 1992 and seven days versus 14 days ALG was addressed in Grundmann 1987. There were no differences in the low versus high dose study. Treatment was frequently stopped early in the 14 day group but there were no other differences in outcomes. One older study by Thomas 1977 comparing low potency ALG with high potency ALG found increased acute rejection at three months (RR 4.14, 95% CI 1.55 to 11.00) and increased graft loss at 1 year (RR 2.53, 95% CI 1.30 to 4.90) with the low potency ALG.

Table summarising single studies of different dose comparisons
Comparison / Study ID (number of participants) Outcome RR 95% CI
lower limit
95% CI
upper limit
rATG: single 6 mg/kg versus 4 x 1.5 mg/kg doses (same total dose)
Stevens 2008 (142) Death at 6 months 0.34 0.01 8.27
Graft loss (all cause) at 6 months 0.21 0.01 4.21
Acute rejection 0.69 0.26 1.83
Delayed graft function 2.40 0.65 8.91
Malignancy/PTLD 0.21 0.01 4.21
BKV 0.15 0.01 2.79
Severe febrile reaction (anaphylaxis requiring ICU) 1.03 0.15 7.10
Serum sickness 0.21 0.01 4.21
NODAT 0.82 0.47 1.42
ATG: 2 x3 mg/kg versus 4 x 1.5 mg/kg doses (same total)
Buchler 2013 (17) **
ATG: adjusted for CD3 count versus fixed dose of 15 mg/kg/d
Abouna 1995 (45) Death at 2 years 0.96 0.06 14.37
Graft loss (all cause) 2 years 0.72 0.18 2.85
Acute rejection 0.96 0.5 1.84
Leucopenia 0.36 0.11 1.18
Thrombocytopenia 0.14 0.01 2.51
Viral infection (all cause) 0.96 0.15 6.21
Bacterial infection (all cause) 0.64 0.21 1.96
ATG: adjusted by CD3 count versus adjusted by total lymphocytes
Ata 2013 (21) **
ATG: standard (3.75 mg/kg total) versus low dose (2.25 mg/kg total)
Grafals 2014 (43) Acute rejection at 1 year 0.57 0.12 2.81
Leucopenia 0.69 0.31 1.56
Severe infection 0.77 0.14 4.14
CMV infection 0.23 0.01 4.50
BKV infection 0.38 0.02 8.86
Death at 1 year 8.00 0.44 146.08
Delayed graft function 3.07 0.94 10.02
Malignancy at 1 year 2.30 0.23 23.51
PTLD at 1 year 0 events not estimable
Graft function at 1 year (SCr, µmol/L) 6.00* 1.07 10.93
OKT3: standard dose (5 mg) versus low dose (2 mg)
Norman 1993a (26) Death at 1 year 0 events not estimable
Graft loss at 1 year 3 0.13 67.51
Acute rejection 0.2 0.01 3.8
Delayed graft function 1.25 0.43 3.63
CMV 4 0.51 31.13
Herpes Simplex virus 0.5 0.05 4.86
Bacterial 0.86 0.4 1.86
Fungal 1 0.16 6.07
Malignancy 4.72 0.23 96.59
OKT3: standard dose (5 mg) versus high dose (10 mg)
Abramowicz 1994 (29) Death at 3 months 0 events not estimable
Graft loss at 3 months 4.69 0.24 89.88
Acute rejection to 3 months 0.47 0.1 2.16
Delayed graft function 0.93 0.34 2.54
ALG: low versus high dose
Sakhrani 1992 (83) Death at 1 year 0.89 0.41 1.97
Acute rejection 0.86 0.48 1.55
Leucopenia 0.5 0.18 1.41
Severe infection 1.05 0.52 2.11
ALG: 14 days versus 7 days
Grundmann 1987 (100) Death 1 year 0 events not estimable
Graft loss (all cause) 1 year 0.29 0.06 1.31
Acute rejection 0.5 0.05 5.34
Delayed graft function 0.62 0.28 1.35
Pneumonia 3 0.13 71.92
Wound infection 0 events not estimable
Treatment stopped due to side effects 63 3.96 1002.01
Graft function at 1 year (SCr, µmol/L) ‐35.4* ‐78.72 7.92
ALG: high versus low potency
Thomas 1977 (71) Acute rejection at 3 months 4.14 1.55 11.00
Graft loss at 1 year 2.53 1.30 4.90

* MD and SD for continuous variables (not RR and 95% CI).

** Results not converted to RR for extremely small studies with 10 or fewer participants in each group.

Significant results shown in bold.

Other antibody preparations

Anti‐CD2 rat monoclonal antibody was compared with no induction treatment in Squifflet 1997. This small study (40 participants) showed acute rejection was decreased by anti‐CD2 (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.96) but no difference in any other outcomes. Another small study compared anti CD7 with OKT3 (Lazarovits 1993) and there were no differences. Two studies assessed anti‐LFA‐1 monoclonal antibody: one in comparison with no induction agent (Spillner 1998) and the other in comparison with ATG (Hourmant 1996). Other than decreased fever with anti‐LFA‐1 compared to ATG, differences were not significant in either of these studies. One small pilot study (Ejaz 2013) comparing four different interventions (ATG versus ATG + rituximab versus ATG + bortezomib versus ATG + rituximab + bortezomib) did not show any significant differences in outcomes other than an increase in new‐onset peripheral neuropathy in the bortezomib groups. There were only 10 participants in each group and follow‐up only reported to one year at the time of this review. One final study compared anti‐ICAM‐1 monoclonal antibody with placebo (EARTS Study 1999) but again there were no differences in outcomes.

Norrby 1997 compared two rabbit ATG preparations made by different manufacturers. There was no difference for the only reported outcomes of acute rejection and CMV infection. One small (51 participants) study by Steinmuller 1991 compared OKT3 with ALG but antibody therapy was only given for patients with delayed graft function. For this reason it was considered separately from the other studies comparing OKT3 and ALG. Side effects were reduced with ALG compared to OKT3 (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.72) but there were no other significant differences in outcomes. Finally Toledo‐Pereyra 1985 compared ATG with ALG also showed no significant differences in outcomes.

Table summarising single studies of other antibody preparations
Comparison / Study ID (number of participants) Outcome RR 95% CI
lower limit
95% CI
upper limit
Rabbit ATG Fresenius versus rabbit ATG Merieux
Norrby 1997 (90) Acute rejection 0.87 0.63 1.20
CMV infection 0.56 0.29 1.07
ALG versus ATG
Toledo‐Pereyra 1985 (50) Death at 1 year 0.5 0.10 2.49
Graft loss at 1 year 0.92 0.50 1.67
Acute rejection 0.95 0.73 1.24
Thrombocytopenia 1 0.15 6.55
Leucopenia 0.07 0 1.11
HSV infection 2 0.19 20.67
ALG vs OKT3 (given only if delayed graft functionpost‐operatively)
Steinmuller 1991 (51) Death at 6 months 0.48 0.05 4.98
Graft loss (all cause) at 6 months 0.96 0.27 3.43
Acute rejection 0.61 0.28 1.32
Side effects (any reported) 0.41 0.24 0.72
Any infection 0.89 0.51 1.55
CMV 0.89 0.51 1.55
Anti‐CD7 versus OKT3
Lazarovits 1993 (20) Death 5 years 1 0.07 13.87
Graft loss 5 years 0.11 0.01 1.83
Acute rejection 1.4 0.67 2.94
Serious infection 0.25 0.03 1.86
Anti‐CD2 rat monoclonal antibody versus no induction
Squifflet 1997 (40) Death at 6 months 0.2 0.01 3.92
Graft loss (death censored) at 6 months 0 events Not estimable
Acute rejection 0.42 0.18 0.96
Delayed graft function 0.17 0.02 1.26
Bacterial infection 0.25 0.03 2.05
CMV 0.5 0.05 5.08
EB virus 3 0.13 69.52
Herpes Simplex virus 4 0.49 32.72
Other viral infection 0.33 0.01 7.72
Malignancy 3 0.13 69.52
Graft function at 6 months (SCr, µmol/L) 8* ‐20.99 36.99
Anti‐LFA‐1 monoclonal antibody versus no induction1
Spillner 1998 (22) Death at 1 year 3 0.14 66.53
Graft loss (all cause) at 1 year 1 0.17 5.89
Serious infection 1 0.07 14.05
CMV infection 1 0.17 5.89
Delayed graft function 1.5 0.31 7.3
Graft function at 1 year (SCr, µmol/L) ‐17.6* ‐62.69 27.49
Anti‐LFA‐1 monoclonal antibody versus ATG
Hourmant 1996 (101) Death at 1 year 4.72 0.23 95.86
Graft loss (death censored) at 1 year 0.39 0.08 1.93
Acute rejection 1.05 0.62 1.78
Delayed graft function 0.55 0.28 1.09
Any episode of infection 1.05 0.74 1.48
CMV disease 0.94 0.5 1.77
Treatment stopped due to side effects 0.24 0.03 2.04
Leucopenia 0.4 0.11 1.47
Thrombocytopenia 0.57 0.22 1.44
Fever (1st 10 days) 0.58 0.36 0.94
Anti‐ICAM‐1 monoclonal antibody versus placebo
EARTS Study 1999 (266) Death at 1 year 1.71 0.7 4.22
Graft loss at 1 year 1.4 0.76 2.59
Acute rejection at 3 months 1.18 0.88 1.57
Acute rejection at 1 year 1.07 0.82 1.41
Primary non function 1.2 0.38 3.83
Delayed graft function 1.21 0.82 1.77
Any infection 1.13 0.98 1.3
Sepsis 1.3 0.59 2.86
Malignancy 0.5 0.05 5.45
ATG versus ATG + rituximab vs ATG + bortezomib versus ATG + rituximab + bortezomib
Ejaz 2013 (40) **

* MD and SD for continuous variables (not RR and 95% CI).

** Results not converted to RR for extremely small studies with 10 or fewer participants in each group

Significant results shown in bold.

1. Acute rejection was reported for anti‐LFA 1 versus no induction but was reported as total number of episodes rather than total number of patients with any episode (results were 5 episodes with anti‐LFA 1 versus 12 episodes with no induction)

Discussion

Summary of main results

Many antibody preparations are now available for induction immunosuppression in kidney transplantation and we sought to summarise the evidence in this review to help inform clinical decision making and policy. Our inclusion criteria were deliberately broad resulting in 28 different pairwise comparisons and studies spanning over many decades. This review provides the best summary available of all RCTs (excluding IL2Ra) and highlights several issues.

Firstly, the evidence basis for decision making is poorly informed by studies in this area. The effects of polyclonal antibody induction remain uncertain for many important outcomes including graft loss and death. Many relevant, well recognised potential harms are not reported frequently in RCTs and more well designed studies reporting patient‐centred outcomes (benefits and harms) are required. Some effects of antibody induction could be quantified.

ATG reduced acute rejection rates by roughly one third when compared to placebo or no treatment, at the cost of approximately 50% increase in the risk of CMV complications and an uncertain impact on future malignancy risk. rATG reduces acute rejection compared to hATG but data supporting this is weak as all events were only reported in a single study. The only significant difference seen in comparisons between alemtuzumab and ATG in steroid avoidance studies was that alemtuzumab reduces rejection at one year; in comparison alemtuzumab increased CMV infection but had similar rejection rates when compared to no induction and triple maintenance. NODAT was not reduced with alemtuzumab plus ESW compared to triple maintenance. OKT3 decreases acute rejection compared to placebo or no treatment but has been withdrawn from clinical use due to a poor side effect profile. ALG prevented acute rejection and led to better kidney function at one year post‐transplant compared with placebo or no treatment but increased the rates of all viral infections.

See Table 1; Table 2.

Overall completeness and applicability of evidence

A decision was made to include any co‐intervention immunosuppression regimens to ensure all relevant studies were included. As a result, a large number of studies from the pre‐CNI era were included which may not be relevant to clinical practice today. Where possible, results were separated into CNI or non‐CNI maintenance as combining these groups was not felt to be clinically useful. As a result, there were multiple subgroups for outcomes of death and graft loss for most comparisons as studies frequently reported these outcomes at a variety of time points. There were no benefits seen for improved patient or graft survival with ATG despite decreased rejection rates when CNI and non‐CNI studies were separated. This lack of benefit may be due to small numbers of studies in each subgroup. When CNI and non‐CNI studies were combined, a reduction in both all‐cause graft loss and death‐censored graft loss was seen at one to two years post‐transplant. This benefit was not sustained however in the studies that assessed longer term graft survival at five years. Results for acute rejection were generally more robust as this was reported in nearly all studies and time points were more standardised resulting in larger subgroups and greater statistical power. New studies are required to see if the absence of benefit is due to a lack of power or whether there really is no effect of one antibody compared to another antibody or placebo on patient and graft survival.

The main aim of using alemtuzumab has been to try to reduce the doses of maintenance immunosuppression required to prevent rejection, especially steroids. It is hoped that this will reduce some of the long term side effects of steroids, including NODAT. However, NODAT was not reduced with alemtuzumab plus ESW compared to ATG and triple maintenance or with alemtuzumab plus ESW compared to triple maintenance alone. This may be partly due to small numbers in these studies or may be due to the role of CNI, especially tacrolimus also causing increased rates of NODAT. Other steroid side effects have generally not been well reported in these studies. In the absence of any data to confirm a reduction in side effects, it is difficult to support the use of alemtuzumab and ESW currently compared to another antibody with triple maintenance.

The applicability of the results of this meta‐analysis to the general transplant population may be limited by the individual studies. The majority of studies included patient groups with mixed immunological risk and a small number studied higher risk groups. Benefits and harms of individual treatments generally seemed homogenous across studies despite these apparent differences in risk. Harms are frequently under‐reported in clinical studies compared to benefits and this review may therefore underestimate some of the potential harms of treatments due to possible under‐reporting in the individual studies.

Quality of the evidence

Overall, the quality of the evidence was generally low to only moderately good by GRADE criteria. Figure 2 shows the individual biases for each study. The most common problem was potential selection bias due to unclear methods of both randomisation and allocation concealment. Only 20% to 27% of included studies were low risk of bias for either random sequence generation or allocation concealment (see Figure 3).

For the main comparison of ATG versus placebo, quality of evidence according to GRADE criteria was moderate for outcomes of acute rejection and CMV infection but low for all other outcomes. The evidence for acute rejection and CMV was graded as moderate rather than high as more than 50% of studies rated methods of allocation concealment and/or random sequence generation as ‘unclear’ or ‘high risk’ as a potential source of bias. For the comparison of alemtuzumab plus ESW versus ATG with and without ESW, the evidence for acute rejection was rated as moderate quality but evidence for all other outcomes was either low or very low quality by GRADE criteria. Again the main reason for acute rejection evidence being graded as moderate rather than high was a significant risk of selection bias due to poor reporting of randomisation and allocation concealment.

Potential biases in the review process

The review was conducted with standard Cochrane methodology and there were no changes from the original protocol.

Agreements and disagreements with other studies or reviews

One study of registry data of transplant recipients in the US also failed to show any improvement in all‐cause graft survival despite decreasing rates of acute rejection (Meier‐Kriesche 2004). More alarmingly, this study showed a trend towards worsening death censored graft survival, despite more potent maintenance immunosuppression. However, given these trends are taken from registry data, it is hard to interpret what this really means, especially with older and more co‐morbid patients being transplanted in recent years.

Many antibody therapies have now shown a reduction in acute rejection but it remains uncertain as to whether this translates into increased patient or graft survival for any of the antibodies in this review. In comparison, there was a reduction in graft loss at one year (but not after) for IL2Ra compared to placebo (24 studies, 4672 participants: RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.90) in a systematic review by Webster 2010. However, there was no difference for graft loss when IL2Ra and ATG were compared in the same review and clinically diagnosed acute rejection rates were also similar for IL2Ra and ATG. However, ATG increased early malignancy at one year compared to IL2Ra (7 studies, 1067 participants: RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.87) but had no effect on malignancy at other time points (Webster 2010). It is possible that malignancy is influenced more by maintenance immunosuppression than induction agents given it is a relatively late complication after transplantation. However, under‐reporting of late harms is common in RCTs and malignancy rates may therefore be grossly underestimated in existing studies of induction agents leading to insufficient power to determine true cancer risk.

In steroid avoidance studies, alemtuzumab reduced acute rejection compared to ATG when ESW was used in both arms. These results would support using alemtuzumab over ATG in patients deemed to be at particularly high risk of steroid side effects and where maintenance with ESW is planned. Further studies of alemtuzumab and ESW compared to no induction and triple maintenance showed similar rates of acute rejection but an increased risk of CMV infection with alemtuzumab. There was no other difference in harms but this may need larger studies to show potential benefits of alemtuzumab relating to steroid avoidance. Reduction of maintenance immunosuppression certainly has theoretical benefits, including reduction in antihypertensives, antihyperlipidaemics, cholesterol, cataracts and NODAT requiring treatment as well as possible reduction of late complications such as malignancy. However, none of the studies to date have been long enough duration or large enough to confirm any of these suggested benefits.

Authors' conclusions

Implications for practice.

Given a 45% acute rejection risk with no induction (assumed risk from control group in Analysis 1.4), seven patients would need ATG to prevent one from experiencing acute transplant rejection, while one additional patient would experience CMV disease for every 12 patients treated with ATG. Where only studies including CNI maintenance were assessed, the acute rejection rate was 37% with no induction and six patients would need treatment with ATG to prevent one person having acute rejection. In steroid withdrawal studies, 11 patients would require alemtuzumab to prevent one patient experiencing rejection given a 21% rejection risk with ATG. Alemtuzumab treatment combined with steroid withdrawal would cause one additional patient experiencing CMV disease for every six patients treated when compared with no antibody induction and triple maintenance, and without apparent benefits to patient‐centred outcomes. ATG and alemtuzumab decreased acute rejection at a cost of increased CMV while patient‐centred outcomes including survival or side effects do not appear to be improved.

In kidney transplant recipients deemed to be at high risk of rejection, the evidence remains unclear as to whether one particular antibody preparation is better than any other at preventing acute rejection. However, this review does suggest that the perceived benefit of induction immunosuppression in reducing acute rejection may not actually lead to any long‐term benefits or improvements in patient‐centred outcomes.

Implications for research.

Longer term follow‐up is always a problem when assessing study data. Although some of the studies in this review have reported fairly long‐term data, the numbers are generally too small to draw conclusions. Longer term follow‐up is needed to really establish whether the benefit of reduced acute rejection with ATG has a significant impact on graft survival or indeed patient survival. In the absence of this information, is it possible to say that decreasing acute rejection is truly a benefit? Reducing the risk of acute rejection becomes less important to an individual patient if this fails to improve long‐term graft or patient survival, especially if the treatment causes potential severe side effects and other harms. We need to find better ways of monitoring long‐term harmful outcomes such as malignancy in any future studies. This may require an ongoing observational cohort study of patients once the initial RCT phase of a study is completed. Another response to this issue is follow up within established registries combined with core patient outcome sets.

If ESW or steroid minimisation is planned in an individual patient, the data in this review would support use of alemtuzumab over ATG due to a reduction in acute rejection. Further studies with long‐term follow‐up or ongoing follow‐up of existing studies are needed to show if there is sustained benefit to steroid reduction therapy and indeed if the benefits outweigh risks of increased chronic rejection and potential increased long‐term graft loss.

When assessing outcomes in transplantation it is difficult to separate the contribution of induction immunosuppression versus maintenance immunosuppression. The appropriate question for future studies may relate to maintenance rather than induction immunosuppression. Increasing knowledge in the field of transplant immunology has led to continual reassessment of the Banff diagnostic criteria and a much greater understanding of antibody‐mediated rejection over recent years. Future studies comparing different immunosuppression regimens need to assess for not only differences in all cause rejection but also differences in the different subgroups of rejection. Ideally study designs should also include some measure of adherence to maintenance immunosuppression as this is particularly relevant for antibody‐mediated rejection in the presence of de novo donor‐specific antibodies. Adherence can be difficult to measure and is generally poorly reported or not measured at all in studies. However, this may be the area that really needs to be studied if we want to increase long term patient and graft survival in kidney transplantation.

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank the referees for the comments and feedback during the preparation of this review. We would also like to Jonathan Craig who contributed to the protocol of this review.

NB acknowledges the support of the Medical Research Council (MRC) Centre for Transplantation, King's College London, UK ‐ MRC grant no. MR/J006742/1. His research was supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre at Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust and King's College London. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health.

SP is supported by a Rutherford Discovery Fellowship from the Royal Society of New Zealand.

PH acknowledges support from staff at the Department of Renal Medicine, Whangarei Hospital, New Zealand.

Appendices

Appendix 1. Electronic search strategies

Database Search terms
CENTRAL
  1. MeSH descriptor Kidney Transplantation explode all trees

  2. (kidney transplant* or renal transplant*):ti,ab,kw in Clinical Trials

  3. (1 OR 2)

  4. MeSH descriptor Antibodies, Monoclonal explode all trees

  5. MeSH descriptor Antilymphocyte Serum explode all trees

  6. (monoclonal or polyclonal) and antibod*:ti,ab,kw in Clinical Trials

  7. (muromonab CD3):ti,ab,kw in Clinical Trials

  8. (antilymphocyte* and (globulin* or serum$* or sera* or antibod* or immunoglobulin*)):ti,ab,kw in Clinical Trials

  9. (antithymocyte globulin*):ti,ab,kw in Clinical Trials

  10. (atg or alg or okt3 or malg or mabthera* or campath* or atgam*):ti,ab,kw in Clinical Trials

  11. (alemtuzumab*):ti,ab,kw in Clinical Trials

  12. (rituximab*):ti,ab,kw in Clinical Trials

  13. (4 OR 5 OR 6 OR 7 OR 8 OR 9 OR 10 OR 11 OR 12)

  14. (induction):ti,ab,kw in Clinical Trials

  15. (13 AND 14)

  16. (3 AND 5)

MEDLINE (OvidSP)
  1. kidney transplantation/

  2. exp antibodies, monoclonal/

  3. ((monoclonal or polyclonal) and antibod$).tw.

  4. muromonab‐CD3.tw.

  5. exp Antilymphocyte Serum/

  6. (antilymphocyte$ and (globulin$ or serum$ or sera$ or antibod$ or immunoglobulin$)).tw.

  7. antithymocyte globulin$.tw.

  8. (atg or alg or okt3 or malg or mabthera$ or campath$ or atgam$).tw.

  9. alemtuzumab.tw.

  10. rituximab.tw.

  11. or/2‐10

  12. induction.tw.

  13. and/11‐12

  14. and/1,13

EMBASE (OvidSP)
  1. kidney transplantation/

  2. exp monoclonal antibody/

  3. polyclonal antibody/

  4. lymphocyte antibody/

  5. thymocyte antibody/

  6. (atg or alg or okt3 or malg or mabthera$ or campath$ or atgam$).tw.

  7. (alemtuzumab or rituximab).tw.

  8. or/2‐7

  9. induction.tw.

  10. and/8‐9

  11. and/1,10

Appendix 2. Risk of bias assessment tool

Potential source of bias Assessment criteria
Random sequence generation
Selection bias (biased allocation to interventions) due to inadequate generation of a randomised sequence
Low risk of bias: Random number table; computer random number generator; coin tossing; shuffling cards or envelopes; throwing dice; drawing of lots; minimization (minimization may be implemented without a random element, and this is considered to be equivalent to being random).
High risk of bias: Sequence generated by odd or even date of birth; date (or day) of admission; sequence generated by hospital or clinic record number; allocation by judgement of the clinician; by preference of the participant; based on the results of a laboratory test or a series of tests; by availability of the intervention.
Unclear: Insufficient information about the sequence generation process to permit judgement.
Allocation concealment
Selection bias (biased allocation to interventions) due to inadequate concealment of allocations prior to assignment
Low risk of bias: Randomisation method described that would not allow investigator/participant to know or influence intervention group before eligible participant entered in the study (e.g. central allocation, including telephone, web‐based, and pharmacy‐controlled, randomisation; sequentially numbered drug containers of identical appearance; sequentially numbered, opaque, sealed envelopes).
High risk of bias: Using an open random allocation schedule (e.g. a list of random numbers); assignment envelopes were used without appropriate safeguards (e.g. if envelopes were unsealed or non‐opaque or not sequentially numbered); alternation or rotation; date of birth; case record number; any other explicitly unconcealed procedure.
Unclear: Randomisation stated but no information on method used is available.
Blinding of participants and personnel
Performance bias due to knowledge of the allocated interventions by participants and personnel during the study
Low risk of bias: No blinding or incomplete blinding, but the review authors judge that the outcome is not likely to be influenced by lack of blinding; blinding of participants and key study personnel ensured, and unlikely that the blinding could have been broken.
High risk of bias: No blinding or incomplete blinding, and the outcome is likely to be influenced by lack of blinding; blinding of key study participants and personnel attempted, but likely that the blinding could have been broken, and the outcome is likely to be influenced by lack of blinding.
Unclear: Insufficient information to permit judgement
Blinding of outcome assessment
Detection bias due to knowledge of the allocated interventions by outcome assessors.
Low risk of bias: No blinding of outcome assessment, but the review authors judge that the outcome measurement is not likely to be influenced by lack of blinding; blinding of outcome assessment ensured, and unlikely that the blinding could have been broken.
High risk of bias: No blinding of outcome assessment, and the outcome measurement is likely to be influenced by lack of blinding; blinding of outcome assessment, but likely that the blinding could have been broken, and the outcome measurement is likely to be influenced by lack of blinding.
Unclear: Insufficient information to permit judgement
Incomplete outcome data
Attrition bias due to amount, nature or handling of incomplete outcome data.
Low risk of bias: No missing outcome data; reasons for missing outcome data unlikely to be related to true outcome (for survival data, censoring unlikely to be introducing bias); missing outcome data balanced in numbers across intervention groups, with similar reasons for missing data across groups; for dichotomous outcome data, the proportion of missing outcomes compared with observed event risk not enough to have a clinically relevant impact on the intervention effect estimate; for continuous outcome data, plausible effect size (difference in means or standardized difference in means) among missing outcomes not enough to have a clinically relevant impact on observed effect size; missing data have been imputed using appropriate methods.
High risk of bias: Reason for missing outcome data likely to be related to true outcome, with either imbalance in numbers or reasons for missing data across intervention groups; for dichotomous outcome data, the proportion of missing outcomes compared with observed event risk enough to induce clinically relevant bias in intervention effect estimate; for continuous outcome data, plausible effect size (difference in means or standardized difference in means) among missing outcomes enough to induce clinically relevant bias in observed effect size; ‘as‐treated’ analysis done with substantial departure of the intervention received from that assigned at randomisation; potentially inappropriate application of simple imputation.
Unclear: Insufficient information to permit judgement
Selective reporting
Reporting bias due to selective outcome reporting
Low risk of bias: The study protocol is available and all of the study’s pre‐specified (primary and secondary) outcomes that are of interest in the review have been reported in the pre‐specified way; the study protocol is not available but it is clear that the published reports include all expected outcomes, including those that were pre‐specified (convincing text of this nature may be uncommon).
High risk of bias: Not all of the study’s pre‐specified primary outcomes have been reported; one or more primary outcomes is reported using measurements, analysis methods or subsets of the data (e.g. subscales) that were not pre‐specified; one or more reported primary outcomes were not pre‐specified (unless clear justification for their reporting is provided, such as an unexpected adverse effect); one or more outcomes of interest in the review are reported incompletely so that they cannot be entered in a meta‐analysis; the study report fails to include results for a key outcome that would be expected to have been reported for such a study.
Unclear: Insufficient information to permit judgement
Other bias
Bias due to problems not covered elsewhere in the table
Low risk of bias: The study appears to be free of other sources of bias.
High risk of bias: Had a potential source of bias related to the specific study design used; stopped early due to some data‐dependent process (including a formal‐stopping rule); had extreme baseline imbalance; has been claimed to have been fraudulent; had some other problem.
Unclear: Insufficient information to assess whether an important risk of bias exists; insufficient rationale or evidence that an identified problem will introduce bias.

Data and analyses

Comparison 1. ATG versus placebo/no treatment.

Outcome or subgroup title No. of studies No. of participants Statistical method Effect size
1 Death 16   Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) Subtotals only
1.1 At 3 to 6 months (+ CNI) 3 523 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.41 [0.13, 1.22]
1.2 At 1 to 2 years (+ CNI) 5 632 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.75 [0.27, 2.06]
1.3 At 1 to 2 years (no CNI) 6 621 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 1.03 [0.86, 1.22]
1.4 At 5 years (+ CNI) 2 159 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.94 [0.11, 7.81]
2 Graft loss (all cause) 13   Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) Subtotals only
2.1 At 3 to 6 months (+ CNI) 4 638 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.60 [0.34, 1.05]
2.2 At 1 to 2 years (+ CNI) 3 549 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.65 [0.36, 1.19]
2.3 At 1 to 2 years (no CNI) 4 500 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.70 [0.49, 1.01]
2.4 At 5 years (+ CNI) 2 159 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 1.13 [0.62, 2.05]
2.5 At 1 to 2 years (all studies) 7 1049 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.71 [0.53, 0.95]
3 Graft loss (death censored) 10   Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) Subtotals only
3.1 At 1 to 2 years (+ CNI) 2 82 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.57 [0.19, 1.75]
3.2 At 1 to 2 years (no CNI) 6 299 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.55 [0.38, 0.78]
3.3 at 5 years (+ CNI) 2 148 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 1.64 [0.20, 13.18]
3.4 At 1 to 2 years (all studies) 8 381 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.55 [0.39, 0.77]
4 Acute rejection 17 2044 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.63 [0.51, 0.78]
4.1 At 1 to 2 years (+ CNI) 12 1491 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.61 [0.49, 0.76]
4.2 At 1 to 2 years (no CNI) 5 553 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.65 [0.43, 0.98]
5 Delayed graft function 9 1304 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.93 [0.78, 1.10]
6 Infection 13   Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) Subtotals only
6.1 Any infection 7 824 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 1.05 [0.88, 1.26]
6.2 CMV infection 6 1072 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 1.55 [1.24, 1.95]
6.3 Other viral infection (not CMV) 4 664 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 1.11 [0.43, 2.87]
6.4 Viral infection (all cause) 3 197 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 1.38 [0.56, 3.39]
6.5 Bacterial infection 5 775 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 1.15 [0.96, 1.37]
7 Leucopenia 4 920 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 3.86 [2.79, 5.34]
8 Thrombocytopenia 4 848 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 2.41 [1.61, 3.61]
9 Malignancy or PTLD 7   Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) Subtotals only
9.1 Malignancy at 1 to 2 years (+ CNI) 3 611 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.94 [0.22, 3.94]
9.2 Malignancy at 5 years (+ CNI) 2 159 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.94 [0.14, 6.23]
9.3 Malignancy at 1 to 2 years (no CNI) 2 121 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
9.4 PTLD at 1 to 2 years (+ CNI) 1 151 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
10 Other adverse outcomes 6   Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) Subtotals only
10.1 NODAT 6 935 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 1.01 [0.56, 1.84]
10.2 Serum sickness 1 371 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 60.67 [3.74, 984.93]
10.3 Tremor 1 371 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.93 [0.46, 1.87]
11 Serum creatinine 5   Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) Subtotals only
11.1 At 6 months (+ CNI) 2 503 Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) ‐5.34 [‐13.44, 2.75]
11.2 At 1 year (+ CNI) 2 222 Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) ‐10.56 [‐21.81, 0.69]
11.3 At 1 year: LD recipients (no CNI) 1 30 Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) ‐9.70 [‐67.32, 47.92]
11.4 At 1 year: DD recipients (no CNI) 1 19 Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) ‐23.0 [‐62.70, 16.70]
11.5 At 5 years (+ CNI) 1 55 Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) ‐32.70 [‐68.98, 3.58]

Comparison 2. Rabbit ATG versus horse ATG.

Outcome or subgroup title No. of studies No. of participants Statistical method Effect size
1 Main outcomes 3   Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) Subtotals only
1.1 Death at 1 year 2 139 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.41 [0.07, 2.30]
1.2 Death at 10 years 1 72 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.75 [0.35, 1.59]
1.3 Graft loss (all cause) at 1 year 2 139 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.31 [0.08, 1.27]
1.4 Graft loss (all cause) at 10 years 1 72 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.96 [0.58, 1.58]
1.5 Acute rejection at 1 month 1 16 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
1.6 Acute rejection at 1 year 1 72 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.17 [0.04, 0.76]
1.7 Delayed graft function 1 16 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.50 [0.06, 4.47]
2 Other adverse outcomes 3   Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) Totals not selected
2.1 Infection (all cause) 1   Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
2.2 CMV disease at 1 year 1   Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
2.3 Leucopenia 1   Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
2.4 Malignancy at 10 years 1   Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
2.5 Headache 1   Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
3 Serum creatinine 1   Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) Totals not selected
3.1 At 6 months 1   Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) 0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
3.2 At 10 years 1   Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) 0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

Comparison 3. Alemtuzumab + early steroid withdrawal (ESW) or minimisation versus ATG ± ESW.

Outcome or subgroup title No. of studies No. of participants Statistical method Effect size
1 Death and graft loss 6   Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) Subtotals only
1.1 Death at 1 year 2 41 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.39 [0.06, 2.42]
1.2 Death at 2 to 3 years 3 225 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.67 [0.15, 2.95]
1.3 Graft loss (all cause) at 1 year 2 41 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.39 [0.12, 1.30]
1.4 Graft loss (all cause) at 2 to 3 years 3 379 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.98 [0.47, 2.06]
1.5 Graft loss (death censored) at 1 year 2 37 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.38 [0.08, 1.81]
1.6 Graft loss (death censored) at 2 to 3 years 2 186 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 2.45 [0.67, 8.97]
1.7 Delayed graft function 2 86 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.62 [0.13, 3.07]
2 Rejection 6   Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) Subtotals only
2.1 Acute rejection at 3 to 6 months (ESW both arms) 3 341 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.47 [0.17, 1.30]
2.2 Acute rejection ≥ 1 year (all studies) 6 446 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.68 [0.44, 1.05]
2.3 Acute rejection ≥ 1 year (ESW both arms) 4 360 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.57 [0.35, 0.93]
2.4 Acute rejection ≥ 1 year (ESW with alemtuzumab only) 2 86 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 1.27 [0.50, 3.19]
2.5 CAN (biopsy proven) (ESW with alemtuzumab only) 2 86 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 2.45 [1.02, 5.94]
3 Infection 4   Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) Subtotals only
3.1 All cause (moderate‐severe) 4 247 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.94 [0.63, 1.41]
3.2 CMV infection 3 225 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 1.08 [0.46, 2.56]
3.3 BK virus infection 2 86 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 3.0 [0.13, 70.83]
4 Other adverse effects 4   Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) Subtotals only
4.1 Leucopenia at 1 month 1 60 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 21.0 [1.29, 342.93]
4.2 Leucopenia at 2 years 1 53 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 3.12 [0.35, 28.06]
4.3 NODAT 2 69 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.41 [0.12, 1.40]
4.4 Malignancy 3 187 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 4.93 [0.59, 41.11]
4.5 PTLD 2 165 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
4.6 Cytokine release syndrome 1 22 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.2 [0.01, 3.74]
4.7 Any serious adverse event 1 139 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.81 [0.59, 1.12]
5 Creatinine clearance 2   Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) Subtotals only
5.1 At 6 months 2 83 Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) ‐13.35 [‐23.91, ‐2.80]
5.2 At 24 months 2 77 Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) ‐12.86 [‐23.73, ‐2.00]

Comparison 4. Alemtuzumab + early steroid withdrawal (ESW) versus no induction.

Outcome or subgroup title No. of studies No. of participants Statistical method Effect size
1 Main outcomes 4   Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) Subtotals only
1.1 Death at 6 to 12 months 4 296 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 1.54 [0.60, 4.00]
1.2 Graft loss (all cause) at 6 to 12 months 4 296 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.86 [0.47, 1.59]
1.3 Acute rejection at 6 months 3 213 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.72 [0.48, 1.08]
1.4 Acute rejection ≥ 1 year 3 244 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.89 [0.42, 1.87]
1.5 Delayed graft function 1 30 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 2.0 [0.26, 15.62]
2 Other adverse outcomes 3   Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) Subtotals only
2.1 CMV infection 2 161 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 2.28 [1.18, 4.40]
2.2 Infection (all cause) 3 213 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 1.15 [0.46, 2.89]
2.3 NODAT 2 161 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.57 [0.13, 2.46]
2.4 Thrombocytopenia 1 30 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 1.33 [0.45, 3.96]
2.5 Malignancy or PTLD 1 30 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
3 Serum creatinine 3   Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) Subtotals only
3.1 6 months 1 27 Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) ‐5.0 [‐28.90, 18.90]
3.2 1 year 2 108 Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) ‐2.89 [‐43.29, 37.52]

Comparison 5. Rituximab versus placebo.

Outcome or subgroup title No. of studies No. of participants Statistical method Effect size
1 Main outcomes 3   Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) Subtotals only
1.1 Death at 6 months 3 447 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.55 [0.18, 1.71]
1.2 Death at 3 to 4 years 2 381 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 2.06 [0.27, 15.64]
1.3 Graft loss (all cause) at 6 months 2 416 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.58 [0.26, 1.28]
1.4 Graft loss (death censored) at 6 months 2 405 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.55 [0.21, 1.46]
1.5 Acute rejection at 6 months 3 447 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.73 [0.48, 1.10]
1.6 Delayed graft function 1 280 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 1.07 [0.65, 1.76]
2 Other adverse outcomes 3   Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) Subtotals only
2.1 CMV infection 2 416 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 1.36 [0.75, 2.47]
2.2 BK virus infection 1 136 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.25 [0.03, 2.18]
2.3 Fungal infection at 6 months 3 447 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.80 [0.50, 1.27]
2.4 Leucopenia at 6 months 2 416 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 8.15 [2.00, 33.15]
2.5 Malignancy at 2 years 1 280 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 1.03 [0.40, 2.66]
3 Graft function at 6 months (eGFR) 2 388 Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) 0.32 [‐3.34, 3.97]

Comparison 6. ATG versus OKT3.

Outcome or subgroup title No. of studies No. of participants Statistical method Effect size
1 Main outcomes 6   Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) Subtotals only
1.1 Death at 6 to 12 months 5 451 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 1.29 [0.64, 2.60]
1.2 Graft loss (death censored) at 6 to 12 months 5 439 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 1.00 [0.64, 1.57]
1.3 Acute rejection at 1 year 4 450 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.76 [0.53, 1.09]
1.4 Delayed graft function 3 235 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.80 [0.52, 1.24]
2 Other adverse outcomes 5   Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) Subtotals only
2.1 CMV infection 3 274 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 1.13 [0.88, 1.46]
2.2 Bacterial infection 1 50 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.51 [0.20, 1.32]
2.3 Leucopenia 1 104 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 1.92 [0.78, 4.74]
2.4 Thrombocytopenia 1 104 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 4.81 [0.24, 97.91]
2.5 Malignancy at 1 year 1 104 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
2.6 Unable to complete induction due to side effects 2 131 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 1.96 [0.10, 39.72]
3 Serum creatinine at 1 year 1   Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) Subtotals only

Comparison 7. OKT3 versus placebo/no induction.

Outcome or subgroup title No. of studies No. of participants Statistical method Effect size
1 Main outcomes 12   Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) Subtotals only
1.1 Death at 1 to 2 years 6 491 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.41 [0.18, 0.97]
1.2 Death at 3 to 5 years 5 768 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.72 [0.37, 1.44]
1.3 Graft loss (all cause) at 1 to 2 years 7 416 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.55 [0.30, 1.02]
1.4 Graft loss (all cause) at 3 to 5 years 5 768 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.73 [0.47, 1.14]
1.5 Acute rejection, any episode (+ CNI) 8 968 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.60 [0.43, 0.83]
1.6 Acute rejection at 3 months (no CNI) 3 85 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.70 [0.33, 1.46]
1.7 Delayed graft function 6 494 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 1.08 [0.70, 1.65]
2 Other adverse effects 6   Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) Subtotals only
2.1 Infection (all cause) 1 108 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 1.38 [1.04, 1.82]
2.2 Bacterial infection 3 366 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 1.01 [0.76, 1.34]
2.3 Viral infection (all cause) 2 353 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.99 [0.72, 1.37]
2.4 CMV infection 3 332 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 1.52 [0.82, 2.84]
2.5 HSV infection 1 215 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 1.45 [0.89, 2.38]
2.6 Fungal infection 3 568 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 1.26 [0.33, 4.89]
2.7 Malignancy or PTLD 3 610 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 1.34 [0.52, 3.50]
3 Serum creatinine 5   Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) Subtotals only
3.1 3 months 3 226 Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) ‐0.93 [‐15.78, 13.93]
3.2 1 year 2 261 Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) ‐6.22 [‐18.21, 5.76]
3.3 3 to 4 years 2 38 Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) ‐21.10 [‐49.81, 7.61]

Comparison 8. ALG versus OKT3.

Outcome or subgroup title No. of studies No. of participants Statistical method Effect size
1 Main outcomes 6   Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) Subtotals only
1.1 Death at 1 to 2 years 3 300 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 2.00 [0.62, 6.47]
1.2 Death at 3 years 2 265 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 1.03 [0.13, 8.09]
1.3 Graft loss (all cause) at 1 to 2 years 3 300 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 1.01 [0.57, 1.80]
1.4 Graft loss (all cause) at 3 years 2 265 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 1.08 [0.68, 1.70]
1.5 Acute rejection (any episode) 6 593 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.97 [0.83, 1.13]
1.6 Delayed graft function 3 310 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.78 [0.61, 0.99]
2 Other adverse outcomes 6   Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) Subtotals only
2.1 CMV infection 4 431 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 1.53 [0.82, 2.85]
2.2 Viral infection (not CMV) 1 148 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.75 [0.34, 1.65]
2.3 Serious infection 1 124 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.8 [0.19, 3.43]
2.4 Viral infection (all cause) 2 66 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 1.35 [0.69, 2.64]
2.5 PCP 1 28 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.50 [0.05, 4.90]
2.6 PTLD 1 124 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
3 Serum creatinine 3   Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) Subtotals only
3.1 1 year 2 245 Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) ‐15.85 [‐28.55, ‐3.15]
3.2 2 years 2 223 Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) 12.50 [‐13.52, 38.52]

Comparison 9. ALG versus placebo/no induction.

Outcome or subgroup title No. of studies No. of participants Statistical method Effect size
1 Main outcomes 16   Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) Subtotals only
1.1 Death at 1 to 2 years 12 1180 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 1.27 [0.96, 1.69]
1.2 Death at 3 to 5 years 2 406 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 1.00 [0.67, 1.50]
1.3 Death at 15 to 20 years 2 223 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.92 [0.40, 2.10]
1.4 Graft loss (all cause) at 1 to 2 years 11 1049 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.91 [0.75, 1.09]
1.5 Graft loss (all cause) at 3 to 5 years 3 527 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.80 [0.47, 1.39]
1.6 Graft loss (all cause) at 15 to 20 years 2 223 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.95 [0.67, 1.34]
1.7 Acute rejection 13 1575 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.69 [0.53, 0.92]
1.8 Delayed graft function 5 615 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.55 [0.31, 0.97]
2 Other adverse outcomes 10   Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) Subtotals only
2.1 CMV infection 3 289 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 2.45 [1.23, 4.85]
2.2 Any viral infection 2 324 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 2.71 [1.86, 3.95]
2.3 Bacterial infection 4 742 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 1.18 [0.92, 1.52]
2.4 Fungal infection 1 230 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 1.11 [0.63, 1.95]
2.5 Thrombocytopenia 1 67 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 12.19 [3.10, 47.92]
2.6 Leucopenia 2 297 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 20.31 [0.61, 676.54]
2.7 Malignancy or PTLD 4 623 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.60 [0.27, 1.31]
2.8 NODAT 1 105 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) 0.93 [0.22, 3.93]
3 Serum creatinine 6   Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) Subtotals only
3.1 At 1 to 2 years 4 369 Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) ‐16.94 [‐50.86, 16.97]
3.2 At 10 to 20 years 2 221 Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) ‐3.77 [‐41.06, 33.53]

Characteristics of studies

Characteristics of included studies [ordered by study ID]

Abouna 1995.

Methods
  • Study design: parallel RCT

  • Study duration: February 1993 to June 1994

  • Study follow‐up: 2 years

Participants
  • Country: USA

  • Setting: single centre

  • Inclusion criteria: adult DD kidney transplant recipients

  • Number: treatment group (23); control group (22)

  • Mean age ± SD (years): treatment group (43 ± 9); control group (53 ± 12)

  • Sex (M/F): treatment group (17/6); control group (17/5)

  • Exclusion criteria: not reported

Interventions Treatment group 1
  • ATG: 15 mg/kg on day 1 then adjusted as per CD3 cell count (to maintain count 50 to 100/µL)

    • ATG given for at least 3 days after CSA started or at least 7 days post‐transplant


Treatment group 2
  • ATG: fixed dose (15 mg/kg/d)


Immunosuppression (both groups)
  • CSA: 8 mg/kg and started when SCr ≤ 3 mg/dL

  • PRED: dosage not reported

  • AZA: dosage not reported

Outcomes
  • Death

  • Graft loss

  • Graft function

  • Acute rejection

  • Leucopenia

  • Thrombocytopenia

  • Viral infection

  • Bacterial infection

Notes
  • Funding source: "This work was supported by the Upjohn Company, Kalamazoo, MI"

Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Unlikely to influence outcomes
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Unlikely to influence outcomes
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk All patient outcome data reported
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk All expected outcomes included
Other bias High risk Study supported by Upjohn Company

Abramowicz 1992.

Methods
  • Study design: parallel RCT

  • Study duration: September 1987 to September 1989

  • Study follow‐up: 36 months

Participants
  • Country: Belgium

  • Setting: single centre (Brussels)

  • Inclusion criteria: adult DD kidney transplant recipients

  • Number: treatment group 1 (56); treatment group 2 (52)

  • Mean age ± SEM (years): treatment group 1 (34 ± 1.3); treatment group 2 (35.3 ± 1.2)

  • Sex (M/F): treatment group 1 (39/47); treatment group 2(37/15)

  • Exclusion criteria: not reported

Interventions Treatment group 1
  • OKT3: 5 mg/d for 14 days post‐op, CSA started day 11

    • Dose increased to 10 mg/d if serum level < 500 ng/mL

  • AZA: 2 mg/kg/d, then 1 mg/kg/d by day 14

  • MP: 1.3 mg/kg before 1st OKT3 dose for 1st 31 patients, increased to 8 mg/kg for next 25 patients to try to decrease cytokine release syndrome 

  • PRED: 0.3 mg/kg day 1 to 14


Treatment group 2
  • CSA: day 1 post‐op, dose 6 mg/kg/d, then as per trough level (150 to 250 ng/mL)

  • AZA: 1 mg/kg/d

  • MP: 1.5 mg/kg on day 0; 1 mg/kg on day 1; 0.5 mg/kg on day 2; 0.4 mg/kg on day 14; 0.17 mg/kg after 3 months 

Outcomes
  • Death

  • Graft loss

  • Acute rejection

  • Graft function

  • Infection

  • Malignancy

Notes
  • CSA delayed until day 11 in OKT3 group

  • Funding source: "This work was supported by Cilag Benelux and the Fonds de la Recherche Scientifique Medicale (Belgium)"

Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk No blinding of outcome assessment, but the review authors judge that the outcome measurement is not likely to be influenced by lack of blinding
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk All patient outcome data reported
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk All expected outcomes reported
Other bias High risk Baseline imbalance. PRA, donor age and HLA mismatch all higher in OKT3 group; funded by Cilag

Abramowicz 1994.

Methods
  • Study design: parallel RCT

  • Study duration: not reported

  • Study follow‐up: only reported to 3 months

Participants
  • Country: Belgium

  • Setting: single centre (Brussels)

  • Inclusion criteria: adult DD kidney transplant recipients

  • Number: treatment group 1 (15); treatment group 2 (14)

  • Mean age ± SEM (years): treatment group 1 (40.6 ± 1.9); treatment group 2 (40.6 ± 3.5)

  • Sex (M/F): not reported

  • Exclusion criteria: not reported

Interventions Treatment group 1
  • OKT3: 5 mg for 1st 3 doses


Treatment group 2
  • OKT3: 10 mg for 1st 3 doses


Dose adjustment as per level from day 3 post‐op
  • Above 1000 ng/mL: next dose 5 mg

  • 800 to 1000 ng/mL: next dose 10 mg

  • Below 800 ng/mL: evening 5 mg dose, then 10 mg next day


Immunosuppression (both groups)
Outcomes
  • Death

  • Graft loss

  • DGF

  • Acute rejection

Notes
  • Short‐term data only (to 3 months)

  • Mean OKT3 dose given was similar

  • Funding source: "This work was supported by Cilag Benelux and the Fonds de la Recherche Scientifique Medicale (Belgium)"

Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk No blinding but the review authors judge that the outcomes are not likely to be influenced by lack of blinding
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk No blinding of outcome assessment, but the review authors judge that the outcome measurement is not likely to be influenced by lack of blinding
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk All patient outcome data reported
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Unclear risk Short‐term follow‐up reported only
Other bias High risk Supported by Cilag Bennelux

Ackermann 1988.

Methods
  • Study design: parallel RCT

  • Study duration: not reported

  • Study follow‐up: 3 to 12 months

Participants
  • Country: USA

  • Setting: single centre (Florida)

  • Inclusion criteria: adult (> 16 years) DD kidney transplant recipients (100%); financial resources for CSA therapy after discharge

  • Number: treatment group (33); control group (33)

  • Mean age ± SD (years): not reported

  • Sex (M/F): treatment group (21/12); control group (23/12)

  • Ethnicity (other/African American): treatment group (23/10); control group (21/12)

  • Exclusion criteria: fluid overload (unresolved by dialysis); previous exposure to OKT3, pregnant or lactating women

Interventions Treatment group
  • OKT3: 5 mg/d IV for 14 days

  • CSA: started day 11, target trough 300 to 500 ng/mL


Control group
  • CSA: twice daily started day 1 (unsure), target trough level 300 to 500 ng/mL


Immunosuppression (both groups)
  • AZA: 2.5 mg/kg (adjusted per WCC and kidney function)

  • MP‐PRED: 2 g IV intra‐op then PRED 0.25 mg/kg/d

Outcomes
  • Death

  • Graft loss

  • Acute rejection

  • DGF

  • Infection

  • Graft function

Notes
  • Outcomes reported for 3 months only as some patients only followed to 3 months at time of reporting (some but NOT all patients followed for 12 months)

  • Funding source: "Supported by a grant from Othro Pharmaceutical Corp (Raritan, NJ)

Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Low risk 'Randomized by sealed envelope draw'
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Unblinded but not likely to influence most outcomes; may influence reporting of infections
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Not certain if acute rejection was biopsy‐proven or clinically diagnosed
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk All patient outcome data reported
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk All expected outcomes reported
Other bias High risk Grant from Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp (OKT3 manufacturer)

Ata 2013.

Methods
  • Study design: parallel RCT

  • Study duration: January 2009 to January 2012

  • Study follow‐up: 3 months

Participants
  • Country: Turkey

  • Setting: single centre (Istanbul)

  • Inclusion criteria: adults DD kidney transplant recipients

  • Number: treatment group 1 (11); treatment group 2 (10)

  • Mean age ± SD (years): treatment group 1 (43.6 ± 4); treatment group 2 (37 ± 3.8)

  • Sex (M/F): treatment group 1 (3/8); treatment group 2 (4/6)

  • Exclusion criteria: not reported

Interventions Treatment group 1
  • ATG modified by CD3 count: 1 mg/kg at time of transplant

    • Continued daily for 10 days with dose as follows as per CD3 count

      • > 150/mL: no adjustment

      • 50 to 150/mL: half dose

      • < 50/mL: dose skipped


Treatment group 2
  • ATG standard dose: 1 mg/kg at time of transplant

    • Continued same dose daily for 10 days

    • Dose skipped if lymphocyte count < 300/mL


Maintenance immunosuppression
  • Not specified for either group

Outcomes
  • ATG dose

  • Side effects

  • Graft function at 3 months

  • Acute rejection

  • Infection

  • Cost (CD3+ analysis + ATG)

Notes
  • Brief report only

  • Funding source: not reported

Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Not reported but likely not blinded
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Not reported but likely not blinded
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk All patient outcome data reported
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Unclear risk Brief report only
Other bias Unclear risk Funding not reported

Banhegyi 1991.

Methods
  • Study design: parallel RCT

  • Study duration: September 1989 to June 1990

  • Study follow‐up: 6 months

Participants
  • Country: Austria

  • Setting: single centre (Vienna)

  • Inclusion criteria: adults DD 1st kidney transplant recipients

  • Number: treatment group (55); control group (60)

  • Mean age (years): treatment group (49.7); control group (47.3)

  • Sex (M/F): treatment group (32/23); control group (35/25)

  • Exclusion criteria: not reported

Interventions Treatment group
  • ATG (Thymozytenglobuline‐Biotest)

    • 200 mg during implantation, repeat dose days 1, 2, 4, 6 and 8 (100 mg if low weight)

  • CSA started day 8 at 4 mg/kg/d

  • Steroids: IV DEX 40 mg, 32, 24, 16, 8 then PRED 20 mg once daily


Control group
  • CSA: 2 mg/kg/d IV infusion, starting during implantation

    • Switch to oral CSA day 2 to 3; 4 mg/kg/d

  • Steroids as for treatment group


CSA adjusted according to levels in both groups
Outcomes
  • DGF

  • Acute rejection

  • Graft failure

Notes
  • Funding source: not reported

Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Unlikely to influence outcomes
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes High risk Acute rejection episodes were not biopsy‐proven
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk All patient outcome data reported
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk All expected outcomes reported
Other bias Unclear risk 7 patients excluded: vascular complications (2), trauma (1), ABO‐incompatible transplant (1), ‘therapy protocol not followed’ (2).
Not clear which group these patients were from; possibly all from one group
This appears to be a preliminary report, however no further publication has been identified

Belitsky 1991.

Methods
  • Study design: parallel RCT

  • Study duration: June 1987 to March 1990

  • Study follow‐up: 2 to 3 years

Participants
  • Country: Canada

  • Setting: single centre

  • Inclusion criteria: adults and children (> 10 years); 1st kidney transplant; all DD

  • Number: treatment group (57); control group (53)

  • Mean age, range: 41.5, 10 to 65 years

  • Sex (M/F): 72/38

  • Exclusion criteria: not reported

Interventions Treatment group
  • ALG (Lymphoglobuline, Merieux) at 10 mg/kg/d until serum Cr < 300

  • Then switched to CSA as per control


Control group
  • CSA: IV 3 to 4 mg/kg started post‐op, continuous IV infusion for 5 days then oral 5 mg/kg twice daily, target levels 300 to 450 ng/mL for 3 months, then 100 to 250 ng/mL there after


Immunosuppression (both groups)
    • AZA: 2 mg/kg IV during surgery, then 1.5 mg/kg orally for 30 days only

    • MP: 500 mg in OT, then oral PRED 1mg/kg, decrease to 20mg over 2 to 3 weeks, decrease further at 60 days, stopped at 105 days

    • If Cr > 200 at 105 days, CSA reduced. If no benefit, PRED and/or AZA re‐added

Outcomes
  • Graft survival

  • Death

  • Acute rejection (confirmed by biopsy or FNA)

  • Kidney function

  • Infection

  • Complications

Notes
  • Funding source: not reported

Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Unlikely to influence outcomes
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Unlikely to influence outcomes
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk All patient outcome data reported
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk All expected outcomes reported
Other bias Unclear risk Funding source not reported

Bell 1983.

Methods
  • Study design: parallel RCR

  • Study duration: not reported

  • Study follow‐up: 2 years

Participants
  • Country: UK

  • Setting: multicentre (5)

  • Inclusion criteria: adult LD or DD kidney transplant recipients

  • Number: treatment group (86); control group (87)

  • Mean age, range (years): treatment group (39.6, 17 to 63); control group (33.7, 16 to 66)

  • Sex (M/F): treatment group (56/30); control group (51/36)

  • DD/LD: treatment group (70/16); control group (70/17)

  • 1st graft/2nd graft: treatment group (76/10); control group (80/7)

  • Exclusion criteria: identical matches for HLA‐A and HLA‐B antigens; ABO blood group donor/recipient incompatibility; circulating donor‐specific leukocytotoxicity; oxalosis; not available follow‐up due to geographical reasons

Interventions Treatment group
  • ALG: IV infusion (30 mg/kg/d, max 2g) for 10 days (in 15 mL/kg in 5% dextrose); IV infusion stopped if severe vasomotor disturbance


Control group
  • Placebo: 15 mL/kg in 5% dextrose for 10 days


Immunosuppression (both groups)
  • AZA: 5 mg/kg day 1, then 1 to 2 mg/kg, increased every 10 days up to 3 to 4 mg/kg (depending on WCC and platelet count)

  • MP: 1 g at operation, then PRED 150, 100, 80, 60, 50, 40 down to 20 mg by 3 months, then further to 10 mg 

Outcomes
  • Death

  • Graft failure

  • Acute rejection

  • Infection

Notes
  • Randomisation balanced within each centre and for DD versus LD

  • Funding source: not reported

Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk 'Random number code' stated, no other information provided
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Low risk Pharmacy controlled; fluids supplied by pharmacists, under double‐blind conditions
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Double‐blinded
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Unlikely to influence outcomes
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk All patient outcome data reported
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk All expected outcomes reported
Other bias Unclear risk Funding not reported

Benfield 1999.

Methods
  • Study design: parallel 2 x 2 factorial RCT

  • Study duration: April 1995 to August 1999

  • Study follow‐up: 4 years

Participants
  • Country: USA

  • Setting: multicentre (21)

  • Inclusion criteria: children; LD and DD kidney transplant recipients

  • Number: treatment group (147); control group (140)

  • Mean age ± SD (years): not reported

  • Sex (M/F): treatment group (92/55); control group (84/56)

  • White/black/Hispanic/other (%): treatment group (54/22/19/4); control group (59/19/15/7)

  • DD/LD: treatment group (82/65); control group (77/63)

  • Exclusion criteria: recipients of more than 1 organ; pregnant females; females of child‐bearing age who were not willing to practice an acceptable method of birth control during the 1st year after transplantation; HIV positive; positive Hep B surface antigen

Interventions Treatment group
  • OKT3: 2.5 to 5 mg/kg (< or > 30 kg) IV infusion peri‐op then daily for 10 days

  • Oral CSA: day 7 at 250 mg/m2

  • PRED and AZA until 1996 then MMF and PRED from 1996


Control group
  • IV CSA: 165 mg/m2 or 4.5 mg/m2 (< or > 6 years), continuous IV infusion over 24 hours, continued for 3 days due to concern over GI absorption

  • Oral CSA day 3 at 500 mg/m2 (< 6 years) or 15 mg/kg (> 6 years)

Outcomes
  • Kidney function at 1 year

  • Death

  • Graft loss

  • Acute rejection

  • infection

  • PTLD

Notes
  • Different maintenance of AZA early on and MMF later

  • Some also switched induction therapy

  • 292 patients randomised, 287 transplanted

  • CSA group: 12/140 (9%) received OKT3 in 1st week, 2 for early acute rejection

  • OKT3 group: OKT3 was stopped early in 21/147 (14%), 6 due to early graft failure

  • ITT analysis used

  • Funding source: National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 5UO1AI37206

Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Low risk "Randomization in a 1:1 ratio occurred preoperatively by contacting the central data center"
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Low risk "Central data center"
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Unlikely to influence outcomes
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Not clear for outcome of acute rejection; not all episodes were biopsy‐proven
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk All patient outcome data reported
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk All expected outcomes reported
Other bias Low risk Appears free of other biases

Bock 1995.

Methods
  • Study design: parallel RCT; stratified according to immunological risk ('R' at risk; 'N' normal risk)

  • Study duration: not reported

  • Study follow‐up: 1 year

Participants
  • Country: Switzerland

  • Setting: single centre

  • Inclusion criteria: adults, LD or DD kidney transplant recipients

  • Number: treatment group 1 (53); treatment group 2 (51)

  • Mean age ± SEM (years): treatment group 1 (46 ± 2); treatment group 2 (49 ± 2)

  • Sex (M/F): treatment group 1 (35/18); treatment group 2 (30/21)

  • DD/LD: treatment group 1 (46/7); treatment group 2 (44/7)

  • Exclusion criteria: HLA‐identical LD; pre‐existing antibodies against mouse globulin

Interventions Treatment group 1
  • rATG (Fresenius): 4 mg/kg/d

    • N patients received 7 doses, R patients received 14 doses

  • IV MP: higher doses in R patients

  • PRED tapered by 5 mg every 2 weeks until 15 mg then 2.5 mg reductions; tapered to 0 unless R patients or those with vascular rejection

  • AZA: given for 8 weeks for N patients or 8 months in R patients

  • CSA adjusted as per level, R patients had higher target level than N patients

  • Maintenance of AZA and PRED from day 0, CSA from day 4


Treatment group 2
  • OKT3: 5 mg/d

  • Doses and other immunosuppression as per treatment group 1

Outcomes
  • Graft survival

  • Death

  • Acute rejection

  • Infection

  • Malignancy

  • Graft function

  • Low WCC

  • Low platelets

  • DGF

Notes
  • Immunological risk: high risk (previous acute rejection causing graft loss in 1st year or > 80% PRA at time of transplantation (R)); all others considered normal risk (N)

  • Funding source: Cilag AG and Fresenius AG each funded half the study costs

Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Low risk Random sequences established prior to start of study such that within each set of 4 consecutive patients 2 received ATGF and 2 received OKT3
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Low risk "assigned treatments were kept in sealed envelopes that were opened when the patient was admitted to the hospital for transplantation."
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Unlikely to influence outcomes
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Unlikely to influence outcomes
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk All patient outcome data reported
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk All expected outcomes reported
Other bias High risk Funded by Cilag and Fresenius

Bock 1999.

Methods
  • Study design: parallel RCT

  • Study duration: not reported

  • Study follow‐up: 6 months

Participants
  • Country: Switzerland

  • Setting: single centre

  • Inclusion criteria: not reported

  • Number: treatment group 1 (35); treatment group 2 (32)

  • Mean age ± SD (years): not reported

  • Sex (M/F): treatment group 1 not reported

  • Exclusion criteria: not reported

Interventions Treatment group 1
  • hATG (ATGAM): 15 mg/kg/d for 7 days from day 0 to 6 (or 14 days if ‘high risk’)

  • Triple maintenance immunosuppression with CSA, AZA, PRED


Treatment group 2
  • rATG (Fresenius): 4 mg/kg/d for 7 days (or 14 days if 'high risk')

  • Triple Immunosuppression with CSA, AZA, PRED

Outcomes
  • Death

  • Graft loss

  • Acute rejection

  • Side effects (headache)

  • Infection

Notes
  • Abstract only publication

  • No table 1 but abstract states baseline and risk characteristics were similar

  • Acute rejection reported as mean number of episodes/patient (1.1 for ATG and 0.6 for ATG‐Fresenius). Total number of patients with acute rejection in each group not given, therefore results not included in analyses of this review

  • Infection reported as 'similar' in both groups but figures not given

  • Side effects other than headache reported as no significant difference between groups

  • Funding source: not reported

Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Selective reporting (reporting bias) High risk Abstract only, limited outcomes reported and not able to be included in meta‐analyses
Other bias Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement; funding source not reported

Brennan 1999.

Methods
  • Study design: parallel RCT; 2:1 randomisation (thymoglobulin:ATG)

  • Study duration: May 1996 to March 1997

  • Study follow‐up: 10 years

Participants
  • Country: USA

  • Setting: single centre

  • Inclusion criteria: all patients eligible for induction agent; adult LD and DD kidney transplant recipients

  • Number: treatment group 1 (48); treatment group 2 (24)

  • Mean age ± SD (years): treatment group 1 (45 ± 14); treatment group 2 (52 ± 12)

  • Sex (M/F): treatment group 1 (30/18); treatment group 2 (15/7)

  • Ethnicity (white/black/other): treatment group 1 (30/18/0); treatment group 2 (17/6/1)

  • DD/LD: treatment group 1 (35/13); treatment group 2 (19/5)

  • Exclusion criteria: previous treatment with horse or rabbit anti‐T‐cell polyclonal agents; had a known allergy to rabbit or horse proteins; documentation of malignancy within 2 years, with the exception of skin malignancies; pregnant women, nursing mothers or women of childbearing potential or who were not practicing a reliable form of birth control; serological evidence of infection with HIV‐1, human T‐lymphotropic virus‐1; presence of serum Hep B surface antigen

Interventions Treatment group 1
  • rATG: 1.5 mg/kg IV for at least 7 days, 1st dose intra‐op through central line


Treatment group 2
  • hATG (ATGAM): 15 mg/kg IV for at least 7 days


Immunosuppression (both groups)
  • AZA: IV then oral

    • MMF instead of AZA if on allopurinol or 2nd transplant or ESKD due to immunologic cause

  • MP then PRED: tapered over 9 months to 0.1 mg/kg

  • CSA: started 2/7 pre‐op if LD or after good urine output if DD; adjust as per levels; TAC if CSA not tolerated

Outcomes
  • Death

  • Graft failure

  • Acute rejection

  • CMV

  • PTLD/malignancy

  • Graft function

Notes
  • Funding source: not reported

Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk Random sequence used but not reported
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Low risk Not reported, however appears to be coordinated by the pharmacist
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk "Only the pharmacist was unblinded and responsible
 for maintaining that the investigator, staff, laboratory, and pathologists remained blinded to patient study drug
 group for greater than 1 year after transplantation"
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk "Only the pharmacist was unblinded and responsible
 for maintaining that the investigator, staff, laboratory, and pathologists remained blinded to patient study drug
 group for greater than 1 year after transplantation"
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk All patient outcome data reported
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk All expected outcomes reported
Other bias Unclear risk Funding not reported

Broyer 1993.

Methods
  • Study design: parallel RCT

  • Study duration: September 1987 to December 1990

  • Study follow‐up: 3 years

Participants
  • Country: France

  • Setting: single centre (Paris)

  • Inclusion criteria: children; all 1st transplant, all DD

  • Number: treatment group 1 (77); treatment group 2(71)

  • Mean age ± SD (years): not reported

  • Sex (M/F): not reported

  • Exclusion criteria: not reported

Interventions Treatment group 1
  • OKT3 (Orthoclone): 0.1 mg/kg/d start dose, adjusted as per circulating CD3 cells; given for 21 days, later reduced to 15 days (after 6 months into study)


Treatment group 2
  • ALG (Lymphoglobuline, Merieux): 1 to 5 mg/kg/d, to maintain total lymphocyte count < 500 mm3; given for 15 to 21 days


Immunosuppression (both groups)
  • AZA: 3 mg/kg, decreased to 1.5 mg/kg after CSA started

  • CSA started when OKT3 stopped; dose 150 mg/mL/d (trough level not reported)

  • PRED: 60 mg, tapered to 30 mg by one month, tapered to 7.5 mg at 6 months

Outcomes
  • Death

  • Graft loss

  • Acute rejection

  • DGF

  • Infection

  • Graft function

Notes
  • No table 1; reported as no significant differences in age, donor age, cold ischaemia time, HLA mismatch, blood transfusions, or PRA

  • Funding source: not reported

Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Most outcomes unlikely to influence outcomes but unclear whether acute rejection was biopsy proven or clinically diagnosed
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk All expected outcomes reported
Other bias Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement; funding source not reported

Buchler 2013.

Methods
  • Study design: parallel, open‐label RCT

  • Study duration: October 2009 to October 2010

  • Study follow‐up: 12 months

Participants
  • Country: France

  • Setting: single centre

  • Inclusion criteria: 1st or 2nd DD kidney transplant recipients

  • Number: treatment group (9); control group (9)

  • Mean age ± SD (years): treatment group 1 (47 ± 9); treatment group 2 (56 ± 9)

  • Sex (M/F): treatment group 1 (4/5); treatment group 2 (7/1)

  • Pre‐emptive transplant: treatment group 1 (4); treatment group 2 (2)

  • Dialysis vintage (months): treatment group 1 (13.7 ± 10); treatment group 2 (32.7 ± 25)

  • Exclusion criteria: <18 years; previous exposure to lymphocyte‐depleting therapies, evidence of HIV infection, active Hep B or C or tuberculosis; PRA > 20%, and recent or current exposure to other investigational drugs

Interventions Treatment group 1
  • ATG: 2 x 3 mg/kg doses day 0 and 3 (started intra‐op), 24 h IV infusion

  • MP: 250 mg pretransplant, second dose before 2nd ATG


Treatment group 2
  • ATG: 4 x 1.5 mg/kg doses day 0, 1, 2, 3, 12 h IV infusion

  • MP: 250 mg pretransplant


Maintenance immunosuppression (both groups)
  • PRED: 1 mg/kg/d

  • MMF: 1000 mg twice/d

  • TAC: started day 3 at dose of 0.1 mg/kg twice/d (target trough 8 to 15 ng/mL)


Prophylaxis (both groups)
  • Co‐trimoxazole: for 3 months for all patients

  • Valganciclovir: 450 mg/d, adjusted for eGFR, for all patients for 3 months unless CMV negative to negative

Outcomes
  • Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of different doses

  • Side effects

  • DGF

  • Acute rejection

  • BKV

  • CMV

  • Death

  • Graft survival

Notes
  • Funding source: grant from Genzyme

Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Not reported but likely unblinded, possible bias for some outcomes
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Likely unblinded but low risk in view of hard outcomes
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk All patient outcome data reported
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk All expected outcomes reported
Other bias High risk Two authors from Genzyme (manufacturer of ATG); however ATG dose same in both groups

CAMPASIA Study 2005.

Methods
  • Study design: parallel RCT; 2:1 randomisation (alemtuzumab: standard)

  • Study duration: October 2001 to September 2003

  • Study follow‐up: 6 months

Participants
  • Country: Asia

  • Setting: multicentre (3)

  • Inclusion criteria: adult LD or DD kidney transplant recipients; randomised only after graft was confirmed as functioning post‐op; either by urine output > 50 mL/h or perfusion on Doppler

  • Number: treatment group (20); control group (10)

  • Median age, range (years): treatment group (37.6, 21.2 to 56.0); control group (41.1, 25.1 to 54.2)

  • Sex (M/F): treatment group (10/10); control group (5/5)

  • Ethnicity (Chinese/Filipino/Malay/Indian) (%): treatment group (30/45/15/10); control group (50/50/0/0)

  • DD/LD: treatment group (10/10); control group (4/6)

  • Exclusion criteria: positive lymphocyte cytotoxicity cross‐match against donor cells; PRA > 85%; previous transplant; multi‐organ transplant; patients deemed to require MMF as primary immunosuppression; prior treatment with alemtuzumab; use of other investigational agents within 6 weeks; history of anaphylaxis after exposure to humanized monoclonal antibodies, pregnant or nursing women, unwillingness or inability to practice an acceptable form of birth control; presence of major systemic or other illness likely to interfere with the patient’s compliance with the protocol or compromise patient safety; active infection; HIV antibody positive; Hep B surface antigen or anti‐Hep C antibody positive, who had autoimmune haemolytic anaemia, or who were unable to undergo transplant biopsy, including patients who would require anticoagulation

Interventions Treatment group
  • Alemtuzumab: 2 x 20 mg doses IV over 2 h, with pre‐med of 500 mg MP

    • 1st dose within 6 h post‐op, 2nd dose 24 h after 1st

  • CSA: started 48 h after 2nd dose alemtuzumab

    • 5 mg/kg twice/d for 48 h, then 4 mg/kg. Dose reduced to 3 mg/kg twice/d if DGF (dialysis in week 1)

    • Adjusted to maintain low trough of 90 to 110 ng/mL.

  • MP: 500 mg at time of surgery

  • ± pre‐med before alemtuzumab with chlorpheniramine, pethidine, or paracetamol

  • Maintenance PRED only allowed after treatment of steroid resistant rejection or recurrent acute rejection


Control group
  • CSA: 6 to 8 mg/kg/d (dependent if DGF); adjusted to trough 180 to 225 ng/mL

  • AZA: 1 mg/kg/d (titrated to WCC > 4 and platelet > 100)

  • PRED: according to local practice

Outcomes
  • Graft loss

  • Death

  • Graft function

  • Acute rejection

  • Infection

  • NODAT

  • PTLD/malignancy

Notes
  • Only short‐term follow‐up reported for most outcomes; small numbers

  • Planned follow up for 3 years but only 6 month follow up reported so far

  • No PTLD or malignancy documented (but unlikely in 6 months)

  • Funding source: partly funded by the National Medical Research Council, Ministry of Health, Singapore and partially funded by ILEX pharmaceuticals (Alemtuzumab manufacturer)

Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Low risk Random sequence used in balanced blocks of 3
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Low risk Sealed envelopes placed with the principal investigator of each centre; the envelopes were opened in serial order within 5 hr post‐transplant
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Outcome is not likely to be influenced by lack of blinding
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Outcome is not likely to be influenced by lack of blinding
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk All patient outcome data reported
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk All expected outcomes reported (to 6 months)
Other bias Unclear risk Partially funded by ILEX pharmaceuticals (Alemtuzumab manufacturer)

Cantarovich 2008.

Methods
  • Study design: parallel RCT

  • Study duration: January 1985 to January 1986

  • Study follow‐up: 20 years

Participants
  • Country: France

  • Setting: single centre

  • Inclusion criteria: adult DD kidney transplant recipients

  • Number: treatment group (60); control group (63)

  • Mean age ± SD (years): treatment group (36 ± 9); control group (40 ± 10)

  • Sex (M/F): treatment group (41/19); control group (47/16)

  • Exclusion criteria: not reported

Interventions Treatment group
  • ALG: 300 mg/d for 14 days

  • AZA: added day 45 to 90 if CSA dose was below 4 mg/kg; given at lower dose of 1 mg/kg


Control group
  • AZA: started post‐op at dose of 1.5 mg/kg


Immunosuppression (both groups)
  • CSA: 4 mg/kg IV started pre‐op, then switched to oral and levels of 150 to 250 ng/mL targeted

  • PRED: 2 mg/kg intra‐op, then tapered to 5 mg by day 90

Outcomes
  • Death

  • Graft survival

  • Acute rejection

  • Infection

  • Malignancy

  • Graft function

Notes
  • Outcomes to 20 years

  • Primary disease/sensitised patients/HLA mismatch/cold ischaemia time all similar. More DGF in group 1 but not significant (26/63 versus 17/60)

  • Funding source: not reported

Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Outcome assessors probably not blinded but unlikely to influence outcome however, less than 50% of acute rejection was biopsy‐proven. Therefore, possible source of bias in making ‘clinical’ diagnosis of acute rejection
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk All patient outcome data reported
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk All expected outcomes reported
Other bias Unclear risk Funding source not reported

Charpentier 2002.

Methods
  • Study design: parallel RCT

  • Study duration: not reported

  • Study follow‐up: 6 months

Participants
  • Country: France/Belgium/Italy/Switzerland

  • Setting: multicentre (30)

  • Inclusion criteria: ≥ 18 years DD kidney transplant recipients; donor was 60 years or younger and the patient was not older than 65 years and HIV‐negative; no evidence of drug addiction; no previous or current malignancy; no known hypersensitivity or incompatibility with TAC, CSA, macrolides, polyoxyethylene hydrogenated castor oil, steroids, or AZA

  • Number: treatment group 1 (185); treatment group 2 (186); treatment group 3 (184)

  • Mean age ± SD (years): treatment group 1 (44.5 ± 11.0); treatment group 2 (44.7 ± 12.4); treatment group 3 (43.6 ± 10.9)

  • Sex (M/F): treatment group 1 (121/64); treatment group 2 (118/66); treatment group 3 (116/68)

  • Ethnicity (white/black/other) (%): treatment group 1 (91.9/2.7/5.4); treatment group 2 (90.9/3.8/5.4); treatment group 3 (88.8/6.0/6.0)

  • Exclusion criteria: ABO incompatible graft, had received another solid organ transplant or required multiple organ transplantation; positive T‐cell crossmatch on their most recent serum specimen; required immunosuppressive drug therapy for other reasons than transplantation; systemic infections requiring therapy at the time of transplantation; significant thrombocytopenia (50,000 thrombocytes/L); elevated liver enzymes (> than 3 times the upper limit of the normal range) at study entry

Interventions Treatment group 1
  • TAC triple group (no induction)

    • TAC: day 0 (0.30 mg/kg/d in 2 divided doses) then adjusted according to trough levels (days 1 to 42: 10 to 42 ng/mL; days 43 to 180: 5 to 15 ng/mL)

    • MP: day 0 (500 mg IV); day 1 (125 mg IV)

    • PRED: days 2 to 14 (20 mg); days 15 to 28 (15 mg); days 29 to 90 (10 g); days 91 to 180 (≤ 10 mg)

    • AZA: day 0 (2 mg/kg IV); days 1 to 90 (1 to 2 mg/kg orally); then stopped


Treatment group 2
  • ATG induction‐TAC

    • ATG: 1.25 mg/kg with 12 hours of operation; subsequent doses form day 1 to 10 adjusted according to clinical condition of patient. Stopped on day 11

    • TAC: 1st dose on day 9 and adjusted as per treatment group 1

    • MP, PRED and AZA as per treatment group 1


Treatment group 3
  • ATG induction‐CSA

    • ATG as for treatment group 2

    • CSA: 1st dose on day 9 (8 mg/kg/s in 2 divided doses); adjusted according to trough levels (days 9 to 42: 150 to 300 ng/mL; days 43 to 180: 100 to 200 ng/mL)

    • MP, PRED and AZA as per treatment group 1

Outcomes
  • Biopsy‐proven acute rejection

  • Death

  • Graft loss

  • Leucopenia

  • Infection

  • Serum sickness

  • Tremor

  • Malignancy

  • NODAT

  • Graft function

Notes
  • TAC triple therapy versus ATG induction‐TAC group were compared for the purpose of this review

  • More redo transplants in ATG induction‐CSA group (14.1% versus 8.1%/6.5%, P = 0.03)

  • Funding source: not reported

Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Unlikely to influence outcomes
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk All patient outcome data reported
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk All expected outcomes reported
Other bias Unclear risk Appears free from other bias except that funding source not reported

Chatterjee 1976.

Methods
  • Study design: parallel RCT

  • Study duration: April 1972 to April 1975

  • Study follow‐up: 18 months

Participants
  • Country: USA

  • Setting: single centre

  • Inclusion criteria: adult DD kidney transplant recipients

  • Number: treatment group (26); control group (24)

  • Age range: 19 to 56 years

  • Sex (M/F): not reported

  • Exclusion criteria: double‐haplotype HLA‐identical match

Interventions Treatment group
  • hATG: 15 mg/kg IV for 14 days.

  • PRED and AZA as per control


Control group
  • PRED: 2 mg/kg/d, tapered to 0.5 mg/kg by one month, then to maintenance of 15 to 17.5 mg/d 

  • AZA: 5 mg/kg for 48 h, then maintenance of 2.5 mg/kg if WCC ok

Outcomes
  • Death

  • Graft survival

  • Malignancy

Notes
  • hATG, no CNI in either group

  • Funding source: Upjohn Company prepared and supplied hATG

Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk Patients assigned a number, however method not described
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Low risk "sealed envelope containing directions for randomization to the treated (HAHTG) or nontreated (non‐HAHTG) group."
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Outcome is not likely to be influenced by lack of blinding
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Outcome is not likely to be influenced by lack of blinding
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk All patient outcome data reported
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk All expected outcomes reported
Other bias Unclear risk Upjohn prepared and supplied hATG

Ciancio 2005.

Methods
  • Study design: parallel RCT

  • Study duration: November 2002 to September 2004

  • Study follow‐up: 24 months

Participants
  • Country: USA

  • Setting: single centre

  • Inclusion criteria: adult 1st DD kidney transplant recipients

  • Number: treatment group 1 (30); treatment group 2 (30); treatment group 3 (30)

  • Mean age ± SE (years): treatment group 1 (49.3 ± 2.5); treatment group 2 (50.2 ± 2.1); treatment group 3 (49.9 ± 2.4)

  • Sex (M/F): treatment group 1 (19/11); treatment group 2 (19/11); treatment group 3 (18/12)

  • Ethnicity (White/Hispanic/African‐American/Other): treatment group 1 (15/7//7/1); treatment group 2 (10/7/12/1); treatment group 3 (14/3/12/0)

  • Exclusion criteria: not reported

Interventions Treatment group 1
  • ATG: 1mg/kg/day for 7 days

  • TAC: 0.1 mg/kg twice daily when SCr < 4 mg/dL; trough target was 8 to 10 ng/mL

  • MMF: 1 g twice daily as tolerated

  • MP: 500 mg for 3 days then weaned to 0.3 mg/kg at one month and 0.15 mg/kg at 3 months


Treatment group 2
  • Alemtuzumab: 0.3 mg/kg on day 0 and day 4

  • MP preceded alemtuzumab (day 0: 500 mg; day 4: 250 mg)

  • TAC started when SCr < 4 mg/dL; trough target was 4 to 7 ng/mL at one month post‐transplant, and 4 to 6 ng/mL at6 months post‐transplant

  • MMF: 500 mg twice daily

  • Plan to avoid long‐term steroids after 1st week


Treatment group 3
  • Daclizumab: 1 mg/kg day 0 and 4 additional doses once every 2 weeks

  • TAC: 0.1 mg/kg twice daily when SCr < 4 mg/dL; trough target 8 to 10 ng/mL

  • MMF: 1 g twice daily as tolerated

  • MP: 500 mg for 3 days then weaned to 0.3 mg/kg at one month and 0.15 mg/kg at 3 months

Outcomes
  • Death

  • Graft survival

  • Acute rejection

  • Graft function

  • Infection

Notes
  • Only treatment groups 1 and 2 were included in this review as IL‐2RA included in separate review

  • Funding source: this work was supported by the National Institutes of Health grant No. R01DK25243‐24, Miami Veterans Affairs Medical Center research support, and Fujisawa Pharmaceuticals, Tokyo, Japan

Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Low risk "Randomization was performed using a standard randomized block design with block sizes of three or six patients (ordering of the block sizes was also randomized), ensuring a balance of patients across treatment arms after each block of patients was randomized"
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Outcome is not likely to be influenced by lack of blinding
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Outcome is not likely to be influenced by lack of blinding
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk All patient outcome data reported
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk All expected outcomes reported
Other bias Unclear risk Funded by National Institutes of Health grant No. R01DK25243‐24, Miami Veterans Affairs Medical Center research support, and Fujisawa Pharmaceuticals, Tokyo, Japan

Ciancio 2010.

Methods
  • Study design: parallel RCT

  • Study duration: September 2002 to October 2006

  • Study follow‐up: 29/36 followed beyond 36 months

Participants
  • Country: USA

  • Setting: single centre

  • Inclusion criteria: LD 1st kidney transplant recipients aged 16 to 66 years

  • Number: treatment group 1 (13); treatment group 2 (13); treatment group 3 (12)

  • Mean age ± SE (years): treatment group 1 (44.5 ± 3.1); treatment group 2 (40.0 ± 3.7); treatment group 3 (47.2 ± 2.8)

  • Sex (M/F):treatment group 1 (10/3); treatment group 2 (9/4); treatment group 3 (7/5)

  • Ethnicity (White/Hispanic/African‐American/Other): treatment group 1 (7/4/2/0); treatment group 2 (5/3/4/1); treatment group 3 (5/4/2/1)

  • Exclusion criteria: "similar to other prospective randomized trials performed at our center"

Interventions Treatment group 1
  • Thymoglobulin: 1 mg/kg/d for 7 days

  • TAC: 0.1 mg/kg twice daily when SCr < 4 mg/dL; trough target was 6 to 8 ng/mL

  • MMF: 1 g twice daily as tolerated

  • MP: 500 mg for 3 days then weaned to 0.3 mg/kg at one month and 0.15 mg/kg at 3 months


Treatment group 2
  • Alemtuzumab: 0.3 mg/kg on day 0 and day 4

  • MP: preceded alemtuzumab (day 0: 500 mg; day 4: 250 mg) 

  • TAC: 0.1 mg/kg twice daily when SCr < 4 mg/dL; trough target was 4 to 6 ng/mL

  • MMF: 500 mg twice daily as tolerated

  • Aim to totally avoid steroids after the 1st week


Treatment group 3
  • Daclizumab: 1 mg/kg day 0 and 4 additional doses once every 2 weeks

  • TAC: 0.1 mg/kg twice daily when SCr < 4 mg/dL; trough target was 6 to 8 ng/mL

  • MMF: 1 g twice daily as tolerated

  • MP: 500 mg for 3 days then weaned to 0.3 mg/kg at one month and 0.15 mg/kg at 3 months

Outcomes
  • Death

  • Biopsy‐proven acute rejection

  • DGF

  • CAN

  • Infection

  • NODAT

  • Graft function

Notes
  • Only treatment groups 1 and 2 were included in this review as IL‐2RA included in separate review

  • Funding source: "Salary support for the Principal Investigator(Dr. Burke), the biostatistician (Dr. Gaynor), research coordinator(Ms. Hanson), and data coordinator (Ms. Tueros and Dr. Zarak)was provided by Roche Laboratories, Inc. via a Clinical Research Agreement to fund part of the costs of conducting and evaluating the results of this clinical trial"

Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Open‐label, unlikely to influence outcomes
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Open‐label, unlikely to influence outcomes
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk All patient outcome data reported
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk All expected outcomes reported
Other bias High risk Investigators funded by Roche

Cole 1994.

Methods
  • Study design: parallel RCT, stratified for the DM and for each centre

  • Study duration: not reported

  • Study follow‐up: 1 year

Participants
  • Country: USA

  • Setting: multicentre (3)

  • Inclusion criteria: adult 1st DD kidney transplant recipients

  • Number: treatment group 1 (83); treatment group 2 (83)

  • Mean age, range (years): treatment group 1 (48.43, 22 to 72); treatment group 2 (47.31, 22 to 70)

  • Males: treatment group 1 (66%); treatment group 2 (60%)

  • Exclusion criteria: refused consent; positive skin test to rATG

Interventions Treatment group 1
  • RATG: 0.15 mL/kg/d as continuous IV infusion within 12 h of transplant; adjusted to keep lymphocyte count < 200/mL3; given for 10 to 14 days

  • CSA initiated at 2 mg/kg twice daily once kidney function was established (SCr < 250 µmol/L) but at least 7 days after surgery; target trough of 100 to 300 ng/mL


Treatment group 2
  • OKT3: 5 mg given during operation prior to anastomosis, then 5 mg/d IV infusion

    • MP: 1 mg/kg IV plus 50 mg oral or IV Benadryl and 650 mg acetaminophen every 6 h were given 1 h before OKT3 administration for the 1st 2 or 3 doses

    • CD3 levels not routinely monitored


Immunosuppression (both groups)
  • MP: 1 mg/kg IV within 1 h of transplant; 0.25 mg/kg every 6 h post‐op for 48 h; converted to PRED (0.5 mg/kg/d) then tapered to 0.2 mg/kg/d by day 11, 0.15 mg/kg/d by week 6 and continued for 1 year

  • AZA: 1 mg/kg IV within 1 h of transplant and then continued at 1 mg/kg/d for 1 year unless WCC > 3000/mL3

Outcomes
  • Death

  • Graft loss

  • Acute rejection

  • Infection (not able to be included in review as reported as total number of infections rather than total number of patients with infection)

Notes
  • Kidney function: SCr at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months 'similar' both groups (numbers not given)

  • Funding source: not reported

Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Unlikely to influence outcomes
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes High risk Clinically diagnosed acute rejection (no biopsy‐proven acute rejection)
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk All patient outcome data reported
Selective reporting (reporting bias) High risk Expected outcomes reported, however infection data cannot be included in our meta‐analysis
Other bias Unclear risk Funding source not reported

Condie 1985.

Methods
  • Study design: parallel RCT; stratified according to age, histocompatibility, transfusion history

  • Study duration: not reported

  • Study follow‐up: 3 years

Participants
  • Country: USA

  • Setting: multicentre (4)

  • Inclusion criteria: adults 1st DD kidney transplant recipients

  • Number: treatment group (81); control group (79)

  • Mean age: treatment group (37.8); control group (35.5)

  • Sex (males): treatment group (75.3%); control group (74.7%)

  • Exclusion criteria: contraindication of positive skin test; presence of circulating antibodies to horse products

Interventions Treatment group
  • Minnesota equine ALG: 30 mg/kg/d IV for 14 days

  • PRED and AZA: dosing regimen not reported


Control group
  • Human albumin 30 mg/kg/d IV for 14 days

  • PRED and AZA: dosing regimen not reported

Outcomes
  • Death

  • Graft loss

  • Acute rejection

  • Infection

  • Malignancy

  • Side effects

Notes
  • Funding source: not reported

Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk Not described
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Not described
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Double blind
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Not blinded, may affect some but not all outcomes
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk All patient outcome data reported
Selective reporting (reporting bias) High risk Expected outcomes reported, however acute rejection rates and SCr not fully reported (short‐term only)
Other bias Unclear risk Funding not reported

Cosimi 1976.

Methods
  • Study design: parallel RCT

  • Study duration: January 1973 to November 1975

  • Study follow‐up: 12 to 24 months (graft loss: 12 months; death: 24 months)

Participants
  • Country: USA

  • Setting: multicentre

  • Inclusion criteria: adult and children LD and DD kidney transplant recipients; aged 10 to 60 years

  • Number: treatment group (183); control group (175)

  • Mean age: treatment group (36.3 years); control group (34.4 years)

  • Sex (M/F): treatment group (123/60); control group (149/60)

  • 1st transplant/repeat transplant: treatment group (162/21); control group (149/26)

  • DD/LD: treatment group (173/10); control group (165/10)

  • Exclusion criteria: history of cancer; reaction to ATG skin test

Interventions Treatment group
  • hATG (ATGAM): 2 different protocols used

    • Protocol 119: 10 to 20 mg/kg/d ATG, starting at transplant day 0, continued for 14 days

      • AZA: 3mg/kg from day 0 and continued for 16 weeks

      • MP: 1.2 mg/kg, starting day 0, continued for 1 week, taper to 24 mg/d by week 17 (or oral PRED)

    • Protocol 122: 20 to 30 mg/kg/d ATG

      • AZA: 2 to 3 mg/kg

      • MP: 1.2 mg/kg, starting day 0, continued for 1 week, taper to 24 mg/d by week 17 (or oral PRED)


Control group
  • AZA and MP or oral PRED (doses not reported)

Outcomes
  • Death

  • Graft loss

  • Time of onset of acute rejection

  • Serious infections

Notes
  • Funding source: Upjohn company and from General Research Support Grants RR‐05486‐12 and HL1‐18646‐01

Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Low risk Random number table used
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Low risk Central allocation via Upjohn company – list kept by "Hypersensitivity Diseases Research’s co‐ordinating center for ATG studies"
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Open‐label; unlikely to influence outcomes
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Most outcomes not likely to be affected but not all acute rejection was biopsy‐proven acute rejection
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk All patient outcome data reported
Selective reporting (reporting bias) High risk Side effects not reported for controls. Authors felt likely to be under‐reported in controls as not double blinded study, therefore data not given (likely to be much higher rate of side effects in ATG group, even if double blinded, therefore, probably not acceptable reason for not reporting
Also, some hard outcomes such as WCC and platelets could be easily collected for both groups
Other bias High risk Authors on Wechter paper are from Upjohn Co (suppliers of ATG).
Cosimi paper– supported in part by research grants from the Upjohn Co and from General Research Support Grants RR‐05486‐12 and HL1‐18646‐01, both from US Public health service

De Pauw 1990.

Methods
  • Study design: parallel RCT

  • Study duration: not reported

  • Study follow‐up: not reported

Participants
  • Country: Belgium

  • Setting: single centre

  • Inclusion criteria: non‐hyperimmunised patients receiving 1st DD kidney transplant

  • Number: treatment group (21); control group (21)

  • Mean age ± SD (years): not reported

  • Sex (M/F): not reported

  • Exclusion criteria: not reported

Interventions Treatment group
  • OKT3: 5 mg/d from day 0 to day 14

  • CSA: started day 12 and adjusted to tough level between 100 to 150 ng/mL

  • AZA: tapered from 1 mg/kg to 2 mg/kg on day 15

  • PRED: gradually tapered from day 14


Control group
  • CSA: 4 to 8 mg/kg/d from day 0, adjusted to tough level between 100 to 150 ng/mL

  • AZA: 1 mg/kg/d from day 0

  • PRED: gradually tapered from day 14

Outcomes
  • Acute rejection

  • DGF

  • Graft loss

Notes
  • No table 1; recipients ‘comparable’ for age, sex, PRA, blood transfusions, time on HD, cold ischaemia time, HLA mismatch

  • Graft function reported as similar in both groups but no figures given

  • Infectious complications also reported as similar

  • Funding source: not reported

Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Unlikely to influence outcomes
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Unclear if acute rejection episodes were biopsy‐proven acute rejection
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk All patient outcome data reported
Selective reporting (reporting bias) High risk Death not reported at all and only limited reporting of some other outcomes; data for graft function and infectious complications not available to meta‐analyse
Other bias Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement and funding source not specified

Debure 1987.

Methods
  • Study design: parallel RCT

  • Study duration: not reported

  • Study follow‐up: 4 years

Participants
  • Country: France

  • Setting: single centre (Paris)

  • Inclusion criteria: 1st DD kidney transplant recipients

  • Number: treatment group (18); control group 1 (18); control group 2 (19)

  • Mean age ± SD (years): treatment group (35.4 ± 1.9); control group 1 (36.8 ± 2.0); control group 2 (36.3 ± 202)

  • Sex (M/F): treatment group (14/4); control group 1 (9/9); control group 2 (15/4)

  • Exclusion criteria: not reported

Interventions Treatment group
  • OKT3: 5 mg/d For 14 days minimum, up to 30 days

  • AZA: 3 mg/kg/d as long as tolerated

  • PRED: taper from 1 mg/kg to 0.25 mg/kg/d


Control group 1
  • AZA: 3 mg/kg/d as long as tolerated

  • PRED: taper from 1 mg/kg to 0.25 mg/kg/d


Control group 2
  • AZA: 3 mg/kg/d as long as tolerated

  • PRED: 5 mg/kg/d for 5 days then tapered over next 2 to 3 weeks

Outcomes
  • Death

  • Graft loss

  • Acute rejection

  • Graft function

Notes
  • Control group 1 used as had identical co‐interventions to OKT3 group

  • Side effects also reported but only for OKT3 group. Cytokine release syndrome common with 1st 2 doses of OKT3

  • No PTLD or malignancy observed

  • Funding source: not reported; one author an employee if Ortho Pharmaceuticals

Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Low risk '...the randomisation schedule was computer generated’
Allocation concealment (selection bias) High risk No comment in paper about whether treatment allocations were concealed
Imbalance in HLA mismatches (see above) favouring controls suggesting problems with randomisation, but would potentially bias results in favour of controls
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Not blinded, unlikely to influence outcomes
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Not blinded, unlikely to influence outcomes
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk All patient outcome data reported
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk All expected outcomes reported
Other bias High risk Funding source not declared, however 1 author was an employee of Ortho Pharmaceuticals

Diethelm 1979.

Methods
  • Study design: parallel RCT

  • Study duration: not reported

  • Study follow‐up: 3 to 31 months

Participants
  • Country: USA

  • Setting: single centre

  • Inclusion criteria: DD kidney transplant recipients

  • Number: treatment group (26); control group (27)

  • Mean age ± SD (years): not reported

  • Sex (M/F): not reported

  • Exclusion criteria: not reported

Interventions Treatment group
  • ATG: 10 to 15 mg/kg/d from day 0 for 28 days


Control group
  • No ATG


Immunosuppression (both groups)
  • AZA: 5 mg/kg for 2 days, tapered to 3 mg over 1 week, maintained at 75 to 200 mg (depending on WCC)

  • PRED: 5 mg/kg/d, tapered over 1 week, tapered to 15 to 20 mg by 1 year

Outcomes
  • Death

  • Graft survival

  • Infection

Notes
  • No table 1; age, sex, race were the ‘same’ in two groups

  • Death and graft loss reported but not at a consistent time point (some only followed for 3 months); cannot be included in review analyses

  • Only irreversible acute rejection reported, therefore not included in review analyses. (reversible episodes reported as similar but no figures given)

  • 2 kidneys taken from non‐heart beating donors – never functioned due to ATN, these 2 patients were excluded

  • Funding source: not reported

Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Unblinded; unlikely to influence most outcomes but may influence some
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Not clear if acute rejection was biopsy‐proven acute rejection
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Missing patients unlikely to affect results (2 with never functioned kidneys excluded)
Selective reporting (reporting bias) High risk Acute rejection, death and graft loss reported but could not be included in meta‐analyses
Other bias Unclear risk Funding source not reported

EARTS Study 1999.

Methods
  • Study design: parallel RCT

  • Study duration: not reported

  • Study follow‐up: 1 year

Participants
  • Country: Finland/Sweden/Norway/Germany

  • Setting: multicentre (10)

  • Inclusion criteria: adult DD kidney transplant recipients

  • Number: treatment group (131); control group (131)

  • Mean age, range (years): treatment group (48.0, 21 to 78); control group (45.1, 16 to 77)

  • Sex (M/F): treatment group (83/48); control group (89/42)

  • Exclusion criteria: history of malignancy; previous exposure to murine antibodies; active infection; ongoing pregnancy

Interventions Treatment group
  • Enlimomab: 160 mg IV 3 hours prior to transplant, then 40 mg/d for 5 days

  • CSA/AZA/PRED per local protocol


Placebo
  • CSA/AZA/PRED per local protocol


17 patients across both groups got ATG for DGF
Outcomes
  • Death

  • Graft loss

  • Acute rejection ‐ at 3 months and 1 year

  • DGF

  • Infections

  • Malignancy

Notes
  • Funding source: not reported

Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Low risk 'Performed in blocks of 6 to ensure balanced distribution of treatment per centre'
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Low risk Central allocation
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Double‐blinded
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Double‐blinded; pathologist reviewing biopsies for suspected acute rejection was also blinded
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk All patient outcome data reported
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Unclear risk All expected outcomes reported
Other bias Unclear risk Appears free from other bias but funding source not declared

Ejaz 2013.

Methods
  • Study design: pilot parallel RCT

  • Study duration: August 2008 to December 2011

  • Study follow‐up: 12 months

Participants
  • Country: USA

  • Setting: multicentre (2)

  • Inclusion criteria: kidney transplant recipients aged 18 to 65 years old considered high immunologic risk by at least one of the following criteria: (1) current cytotoxic PRA ≥ 20% or peak cytotoxic PRA ≥ 50, (2) T or B cell positive crossmatch (by flow cytometry) with confirmed DSA on solid‐phase assay, (3) historical positive serologic or cytotoxic crossmatch or donor specific antibody to donor or (4) prior allograft loss with a history of more than one acute rejection episode

  • Number: treatment group 1 (10); treatment group 2 (10); treatment group 3 (10); control group (10)

  • Mean age (years): treatment group 1 (52.8); treatment group 2 (50.6); treatment group 3 (50.1); control group (49.9)

  • Sex (M/F): treatment group 1 (5/5); treatment group 2 (2/8); treatment group 3 (6/4); control group (5/5)

  • Exclusion criteria: contraindications to bortezomib, rituximab or rATG; HLA identical living‐related kidney transplants; previously received or were receiving a transplant other than kidney; previous allograft loss due to disease recurrence; history of allergic/anaphylactic reactions to humanized or murine mAbs or polyclonal antibodies; ANC < 1000/mm3 or platelet count < 100,000/mm3 within 30 days; grade 2 peripheral neuropathy within 14 days; MI within 6 months; class III or IV heart failure; uncontrolled angina; uncontrolled ventricular arrhythmias; electrocardiographic evidence of acute ischaemia or active conduction system abnormalities; anti‐HIV‐positive, Hep B surface antigen‐positive or anti‐Hep C virus‐positive within 1 year; malignancy within 3 years; systemic infections within 2 weeks; live vaccine within 4 weeks; investigational drugs within 30 days or five half‐lives; severe liver disease with abnormal liver profile within 30 days; pregnant or lactating women; women of childbearing potential must have negative serum pregnancy test within 48 h prior to receiving study medication; EBV serologic mismatch; CMV serologic mismatch

Interventions Treatment group 1
  • rATG: 1.5 mg/kg/dose, 5 doses on alternate days

  • Rituximab: 375 mg/m2, 1 dose on day 1


Treatment group 2
  • rATG: 1.5 mg/kg/dose, 5 doses on alternate days

  • Bortezomib: 1.3 mg/m2/dose, 4 doses on days 0, 3, 7, 10


Treatment group 3
  • rATG: 1.5 mg/kg/dose, 5 doses on alternate days

  • Rituximab: 200 mg/m2, 1 dose on day 1

  • Bortezomib: 1.3 mg/m2/dose, 4 doses on days 0, 3, 7, 10


Control group
  • rATG: 1.5 mg/kg/dose, 6 doses on alternate days


Immunosuppression (all groups)
  • TAC: started within 72 h of transplant, target of 8 to 15 ng/mL for 3 months, then target 5 to 12 ng/mL

  • MMF: 1000 mg twice daily, could increase to 1500 mg in African‐American patients

  • PRED: rapid taper to 5 mg daily by 7 days and then continued for 1 year post transplant


Prophylaxis (all groups)
  • Valganciclovir: 90 days if recipient CMV +ve, if CMV –ve to –ve then 30 days only

  • Nystatin: 90 days

  • Co‐trimoxazole/pentamidine/dapsone: 1 year

Outcomes
  • Death

  • Graft loss

  • Acute rejection

  • Graft function

  • Malignancy

  • PTLD

  • Infection

Notes
  • Funding source: "Bortezomib (Velcade®) was provided by Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Research grant support for this study was provided by Genzyme (now Sanofi)"

Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Low risk Central computerised block randomisation, generated by independent statistician
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Low risk Sealed envelopes, sequential order as consented
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes High risk Open‐label, some outcomes (e.g. reporting of side effects) likely to be influenced
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes High risk Open‐label, may affect assessment of toxicities
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk All patient outcome data reported
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk All expected outcomes reported
Other bias High risk Two authors received research funds from both Genzyme and Millennium
Research grant support from Genzyme, Bortezomib provided by Millennium Pharm

Farney 2008.

Methods
  • Study design: parallel RCT; divided into high or low immunologic risk and then randomised

  • Study duration: 1 February 2005 to 15 June 2006

  • Study follow‐up: median 2 years

Participants
  • Country: USA

  • Setting: single centre

  • Inclusion criteria: adult (> 18 years) kidney and pancreas transplant recipients

  • Number: treatment group (113); control group (109)

  • Mean age (years): treatment group (51 ± 12); control group (51 ± 13)

  • Sex (M/F): treatment group (67/46); control group (62/47)

  • Black/white: treatment group (34/74); control group (36/69)

  • Exclusion criteria: not reported

Interventions Treatment group
  • Alemtuzumab: 30 mg single dose, started intra‐operatively


Control group
  • rATG: 1.5 mg/kg, via CVC, 1st dose started intra‐operatively; subsequent infusions same dose, to 3 to 7 in total, on alternate days until 50% drop in SCr and CNI started 


Immunosuppression (both groups)
  • TAC or CSA: targets dependent on immunologic risk

    • High risk trough levels: TAC (10 to 12 ng/mL) or CSA (250 to 350 ng/mL) for 3 months, then TAC (8 to 10 ng/mL) or CSA (150 to 250 ng/mL)

    • Low: risk tough levels: TAC (8 to 10 ng/mL) or CSA (250 to 325 ng/mL) for 3 months, then TAC (6 to 8 ng/mL) or CSA (150 to 250 ng/mL)

  • MMF: 500 to 1000 mg twice daily (500 if > 60yrs and on TAC)

  • PRED: dose dependent on immunologic risk

    • High risk or DGF: rapid taper to 5 mg by 2 months

    • Low risk: 6 doses max


Prophylaxis (both groups)
  • PCP: prophylaxis for 1 year

  • Valganciclovir: 3 months minimum

  • Nystatin: 1 month

Outcomes
  • Biopsy‐proven acute rejection

  • Graft survival

Notes
  • Enrolment of kidney alone recipients discontinued in Sept 2007 due to higher incidence of biopsy‐proven acute rejection in the rATG group (? due to steroid withdrawal)

  • Other outcomes reported for kidney and pancreas patients combined, therefore cannot be included in this review

  • Funding source: self‐funded by Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center

Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Low risk '2 distinct randomly generated lists'
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Low risk Allocation done independently by research co‐ordinator. Co‐ordinator informed transplant surgeon just before surgery which agent to use.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Unlikely to influence outcomes
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Unlikely to influence outcomes
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk All patient outcome data reported
Selective reporting (reporting bias) High risk Unable to meta‐analyse death, DGF, infection due to combined data
Other bias Low risk Appears free from other bias; study self‐funded (by Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center)

Frey 1991.

Methods
  • Study design: parallel RCT; patients stratified by age (18 to 49 versus ≥ 50 years), diabetes, previous transplant, graft survival if previous transplant

  • Study duration: July 1987 to September 1990

  • Study follow‐up: 2 years

Participants
  • Country: USA

  • Setting: single centre

  • Inclusion criteria: kidney and kidney‐pancreas DD transplant recipients

  • Number (kidney/kidney‐pancreas): treatment group (67/17); control group (71/18)

  • Mean age ± SD (years): treatment group (41 ± 1.3); control group (42 ± 1.3)

  • Sex (M/F): treatment group (45/39); control group (51/38)

  • Ethnicity (white): treatment group (90%); control group (93%)

  • Exclusion criteria: Initially excluded kidney transplant patients who had rejected a previous transplant in the 1st year; this was changed 1 year into the study toot include all kidney transplant recipients; kidney‐pancreas recipients excluded if > 50 years or were undergoing a retransplant of either a kidney or pancreas

Interventions Treatment group
  • OKT3: 5 mg/d for 7 days; given 1st dose in operating theatre after pre‐med with steroids


Control group
  • mALG: 20 mg/kg/d for 7 days; 1st dose 1 day post‐op; ALG continued for up to 10 days with delayed CSA start if oliguria


Immunosuppression (both groups)
  • PRED: 1 mg/kg/d, taper to 0.5 mg/kg by day 10

  • AZA: 5 mg/kg taper to 2.5 mg/kg

  • CSA: 4 mg/kg twice daily from day 5 post‐op

Outcomes
  • Death up to 2 years

  • Graft survival up to 2 years

  • Acute rejection

  • Malignancy

  • CMV infection

  • Graft function up to 2 years

Notes
  • Results reported here only for kidney transplant recipients (pancreas and kidney recipients excluded)

  • All acute rejection were biopsy‐proven acute rejection

  • Funding source: supported by NIH Research Grant 5P01‐DK 13083

Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Low risk Sealed envelopes used
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Unlikely to influence outcomes
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Unlikely to influence outcomes, all acute rejection was biopsy‐proven
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk All patient outcome data reported
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk Expected outcomes reported
Other bias Low risk Supported by NIH research grant

Friend 1987.

Methods
  • Study design: parallel RCT

  • Study duration: not reported

  • Study follow‐up: 1 year

Participants
  • Country: UK

  • Setting: single centre

  • Inclusion criteria: adult (> 16 years) DD kidney transplant recipients

  • Number: treatment group (26); control group (26)

  • Mean age, range (years): treatment group (45, 21 to 67); control group (40.4, 16 to 68)

  • Sex (M/F): treatment group (18/8); control group (18/8)

  • Exclusion criteria: Hep B carriers; multiorgan recipients; already entered study with previous transplant; transplant biopsy not possible; could not be treated with standard immunosuppressive protocol; refused consent

Interventions Treatment group
  • Alemtuzumab: 25 mg (IV), twice daily for 10 days

  • MP: 0.5 g

  • CSA: 4 mg/kg (IV) for 2 to 3 days, then 17 mg/kg (oral) to maintain trough levels 200 to 400 U


Control group
  • No alemtuzumab


Immunosuppression (both groups)
  • MP: 0.5 g

  • CSA: 4 mg/kg (IV) for 2 to 3 days, then 17 mg/kg (oral) to maintain trough levels 200 to 400 U


If steroid‐resistant acute rejection (after 2 or more courses of steroids) switched to either:
  • CSA + PRED + AZA on alternate days, or daily PRED + AZA

Outcomes
  • Acute rejection

  • Infections

  • Reactions

  • Graft survival

  • Patient survival

  • Graft function

Notes
  • Funding source: supported by the Medical Research Council, The British Technology Group, the Ben Hardwick Memorial Fund, the Addenbrooke's Children's Liver Transplant Fund, and the East Anglian Regional Heath Authority

Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Low risk Permuted block randomisation
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Low risk Sealed envelopes used
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Unlikely to influence outcomes
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Mainly low risk but not all acute rejection was biopsy‐proven acute rejection. Some was diagnosed and treated even when no evidence on biopsy but high clinical suspicion
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk All patient outcome data reported
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk All expected outcomes reported
Other bias Low risk Appears free from other bias

Fries 1988a.

Methods
  • Study design: parallel RCT

  • Study duration: January 1985 to May 1986

  • Study follow‐up: 1 year

Participants
  • Country: France

  • Setting: single centre

  • Inclusion criteria: adult DD kidney transplant recipients

  • Number: treatment group (29); control group (27)

  • Mean age ± SD (years): not reported

  • Sex (M/F): not reported

  • Exclusion criteria: not reported

Interventions Treatment group
  • ALG: for 15 days (dose not reported)

  • CSA: 8 mg/kg/d

  • PRED: 2mg/kg/d, taper to 10 to 15 mg/day at 1 month

  • AZA: added for maintenance if CSA reduced to 4mg/kg/d for nephrotoxicity


Control group
  • Triple therapy: low dose combination of AZA, CSA and PRED (doses not reported)

Outcomes
  • Death

  • Graft loss

  • Acute rejection

  • CMV infection

Notes
  • No information, other than 3 re‐transplant patients, others all 1st transplant. All DD transplant recipients.

  • Abstract only

  • Cannot use any results for reporting; 29 versus 27 patients were randomised to treatment groups. However, 51 patients were given ALG altogether (therefore, 22 of these were not randomised). Results are given including the 51 patients for the ALG group, therefore including the non‐randomised patients. Cannot use for review outcomes

  • funding source: not reported

Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement, abstract only
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement, abstract only
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement, abstract only
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement, abstract only
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement, abstract only
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement, abstract only
Other bias Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement, abstract only

Fukuuchi 1996.

Methods
  • Study design: parallel RCT

  • Study duration: October 1987 to December 1989

  • Study follow‐up: 1 year

Participants
  • Country: France

  • Setting: single centre

  • Inclusion criteria: for 2 years all patients having DD transplant were recruited then only 'high risk' (highly sensitised with PRA > 75 or re‐transplant) were included; 36 'high risk' included from 1st period but these were really a subgroup of all the randomised patients; 46 truly randomised patients from second period (when only 'high risk' patients were eligible for randomisation)

  • Number (randomised/analysed): treatment group 1 (45/44); treatment group 2 (37/37)

  • Mean age ± SD (years): not reported

  • Sex (M/F): not reported

  • Exclusion criteria: not reported

Interventions Treatment group 1
  • OKT3: 5 mg/d for 10 days

  • PRED, AZA and CSA (doses not reported)


Treatment group 2
  • ATG: 3775 mg/d (Thymoglobulin, Merieux) for 10 days

  • PRED, AZA and CSA (doses not reported)

Outcomes
  • Death

  • Graft loss

  • Acute rejection

  • DGF

  • Infection

  • Graft function

Notes
  • Protocol changed half way through study

  • Results reported include combination of high risk subgroup from 1st protocol and randomised high risk patients from 2nd protocol. Therefore, not included in review analyses

  • Recipient age and PRA were not evenly distributed, 5 recipients over 50 years in OKT3 versus 13 recipients in ATG

  • Funding source: not reported

Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Unlikely to influence outcomes
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Unlikely to influence outcomes
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes High risk Change in eligibility for randomisation part way through
Selective reporting (reporting bias) High risk Change in eligibility for randomisation part way through
Other bias Unclear risk Funding source not reported

Gianello 1987.

Methods
  • Study design: parallel RCT

  • Study duration: January 1983 to February 1986

  • Study follow‐up: 2 years

Participants
  • Country: Belgium

  • Setting: single centre

  • Inclusion criteria: 1st and 2nd DD kidney transplant recipients

  • Number: treatment group (66); control group (58)

  • Mean age ± SD (years): treatment group (33.3 ± 35.1); control group (33.1 ± 35.4)

  • Sex ratio (M/F): treatment group (3/1); control group (2.8/1)

  • Exclusion criteria: causative nephropathy was diabetes or oxalosis; positive T cell crossmatch with donor lymphocytes

Interventions Treatment group
  • CSA: 3 mg/kg IV infusion for 24 hours, then oral 14 mg/kg for 1 week (subsequently reduced to 1 to 3 days only), then 12 mg/kg/d, then adjusted by levels; target < 100 ng/mL

  • MP: 1g IV on day of transplant

  • PRED: 0.4mg/kg/d, tapered to 0.1 mg/kg/d by 9 months


Control group
  • ALG: started pre‐op, given 50 mg/kg/d for 3 days, then 25 mg/kg/d for 11 days

  • AZA: 1.5 to 2.5 mg/kg/d IV for 1st day then oral, adjusted for WCC

  • MP: IV, total dose 4.5 g over 6 days

  • PRED: at 0.7 mg/kg/d tapered to 0.1 mg/kg/d by 1 year

Outcomes
  • Death

  • Graft loss

  • Acute rejection

  • DGF

  • Graft function at 2 years

Notes
  • Age, 1st/2nd graft, gender, dialysis vintage, previous blood transfusion, HLA match, total ischaemic time, cause of ESRD all similar in both groups

  • Funding source: not reported

Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Not reported but likely not blinded; low risk of bias for hard outcomes but bias possible for some outcomes
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Likely not blinded; some acute rejection was biopsy‐proven acute rejection but some was clinical
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk All patient outcome data reported
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk All expected outcomes reported
Other bias High risk Seems results are combined here for 2 separate studies; one study of 1st DD transplant recipients, another study of 2nd DD transplant recipients. ‘we have concurrently conducted a similar studyin secondary cadaver grafts…we analyse in this report the outcome of both…..’.

Grafals 2014.

Methods
  • Study design: open‐label, parallel, pilot RCT

  • Study duration: November 2010 to April 2013

  • Study follow‐up: 12 months

Participants
  • Country: USA

  • Setting: single centre

  • Inclusion criteria: > 18 years LD or DD kidney transplant recipients

  • Number: treatment group 1 (23); treatment group 2 (20)

  • Mean age ± SD (years): treatment group 1 (52.9 ± 12.1); treatment group 2 (56.6 ± 11.6)

  • Sex (M/F): treatment group 1 (16/7); treatment group 2 (16/4)

  • White/Hispanic/African American/other: treatment group 1 (13/6/2/2); treatment group 2 (16/2/2/0)

  • DD/LD: treatment group 1 (14/9); treatment group 2 (12/8)

  • Exclusion criteria: multiorgan transplant; current or historic panel reactive antibody > 20%; presence of donor specific anti‐HLA antibodies; contraindication to ATG use

Interventions Treatment group 1
  • Standard dose ATG: 3.75 mg/kg total dose; 1.25 mg/kg, 3 doses on days 0, 1, 2


Treatment group 2
  • Low dose ATG: 2.25 mg/kg total dose; 0.75 mg/kg, 3 doses on days 0, 1, 2


Immunosuppression (both groups)
  • TAC 2 mg twice a day, target level 8 to 10 ng/mL for 1st 6 months

  • MMF: 1000 mg twice a day

  • 7 day steroid taper: 3 days MP, 4 days PRED

  • Co‐trimoxazole prophylaxis: 480 mg once/day for 6 months (pentamidine if allergic)

  • Valganciclovir: 450 mg once/d, adjusted for eGFR for 6 months for high risk patients for CMV (donor positive to negative recipient), or for 3 months for all other patients

Outcomes
  • Death

  • Graft loss

  • Biopsy‐proven acute rejection

  • DGF

  • Graft function

  • Adverse outcomes

Notes
  • Funding source: "Robert Weiss Grant (MG) and American Heart Association (LVR). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Low risk Computer generated protocols used for randomisation
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Low risk Randomisation performed by research coordinator, sealed envelopes used (see clinical trials website)
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Open label but low risk in view of outcomes
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Open label but low risk in view of outcomes
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk All patient outcome data reported
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk all expected outcomes reported
Other bias Low risk Appears free of other biases

Grino 1990.

Methods
  • Study design: parallel RCT

  • Study duration: January 1986 to January 1988

  • Study follow‐up: 15 years

Participants
  • Country: Spain

  • Setting: single centre

  • Inclusion criteria: adult 1st DD kidney transplant recipients

  • Number: treatment group (50); control group (50)

  • Mean age ± SD (years): treatment group (40 ± 11); control group (37 ± 13)

  • Sex (M/F): treatment group (37/13); control group (32/18)

  • Exclusion criteria: diabetic and highly sensitized patients (PRA > 70%)

Interventions Treatment group
  • ALG (horse, Merieux): 10 mg/kg IV, 1 day post‐op, then alternate days, maximum 6 doses

  • MP: 1 g, then PRED 0.25 mg/kg, taper to 0.1 mg/kg by 6 months

  • CSA: 3 mg/kg IV pre transplant, then 1 mg/kg twice daily until able to take oral, then 8 mg/kg/d, trough target 300 to 600 ng/mL


Control group
  • CSA: 5 mg/kg pre‐op IV, then 2.5 mg/kg twice daily, then oral 15 mg/kg; trough target of 300 to 800 ng/mL

  • MP or PRED: 0.5 mg/kg ‘during surgery’, taper to 0.1 mg/kg/d by 6 months


Immunosuppression (both groups)
  • Oral PD: 7.5 to 15 mg/d

  • CSA: 3 to 8 mg/kg/d

Outcomes
  • Death at 15 years

  • Graft loss at 15 years

  • Acute rejection

Notes
  • Control group had higher dose CSA

  • Death censored graft survival excluded as only reported as percentages

  • Denominator not clear

  • Funding source: not reported

Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) High risk 'the allocation to treatment groups was done alternately'
Allocation concealment (selection bias) High risk As above
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Unlikely to influence outcomes
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes High risk Acute rejection episodes diagnosed clinically (no biopsy)
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk All patient outcome data reported
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Unclear risk Some expected outcomes not reported such as infection and other adverse outcomes
Other bias Unclear risk Funding source not reported

Grino 1991.

Methods
  • Study design: parallel RCT

  • Study duration: March 1988 to December 1990

  • Study follow‐up: 2 years

Participants
  • Country: Spain

  • Setting: single centre

  • Inclusion criteria: 1st DD kidney transplant recipients

  • Number: treatment group 1 (68); treatment group 2 (72)

  • Mean age ± SD (years): treatment group 1 (42.6 ± 13); treatment group 2 (39 ± 11)

  • Sex (M): treatment group 1 (59%); treatment group 2 (57%)

  • Exclusion criteria: not reported

Interventions Treatment group 1
  • Horse ALG: 15 mg/kg pre‐transplant, 12 mg/kg day 1, then 10 mg/kg alternate days for 4 doses

    • Dose adjusted to maintain CD3 counts 10% to 20%


Treatment group 2
  • OKT3: 5mg IV at induction, continued daily for 5 doses total


Immunosuppression (both groups)
  • MP: 1 mg/kg in operating theatre, then 0.25 mg/kg, then taper to 0.1 mg/kg

  • CSA: 3 mg/kg IV pre‐op, then 3 mg/kg in 2 doses post‐op, then oral 8 mg/kg in 2 doses

Outcomes
  • Death

  • Graft loss

  • DGF

  • Acute rejection

  • Serious infection

Notes
  • Funding source: not reported

Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Low risk "randomly allocated by a closed‐envelope technique"
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Unlikely to influence outcomes
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Unlikely to influence outcomes
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk All patient outcome data reported
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk All expected outcomes reported
Other bias Unclear risk Funding source not reported

Grundmann 1984.

Methods
  • Study design: parallel RCT

  • Study duration: May 1981 to July 1983

  • Study follow‐up: 1 year

Participants
  • Country: Germany

  • Setting: single centre

  • Inclusion criteria: 1st DD kidney transplant recipients

  • Number: treatment group (47); control group (47)

  • Mean age ± SD (years): not reported

  • Sex (M/F): not reported

  • Exclusion criteria: not reported

Interventions Treatment group
  • ALG (Merieux): 0.5 mL/kg/d (max 30 mL) for 1st 3 weeks post transplant


Control group
  • No ALG


Immunosuppression (both groups)
  • PRED: 250 mg day 1, reduced by 25 mg/day to 100 mg, then by 5 mg every other day to 10 mg

  • AZA: max 3 mg/kg/day but dose adjusted for WCC/platelets/side effects

Outcomes
  • Death

  • Graft loss

  • DGF

  • Infection

  • Acute rejection

Notes
  • No table 1 but states 2 groups were similar in terms of age, time on dialysis, HLA mismatch and cold ischaemia time

  • Funding source: not reported

Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Outcomes not likely to be influenced
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk May affect some outcomes and not reported if blinded
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Other bias Unclear risk Insufficient information to assess whether an important risk of bias exists; funding source not reported

Grundmann 1987.

Methods
  • Study design: parallel RCT

  • Study duration: September 1983 to November 1985

  • Study follow‐up: all followed to November 1986

Participants
  • Country: Germany

  • Setting: single centre

  • Inclusion criteria: 1st DD kidney transplant recipients

  • Number: treatment group 1 (50); treatment group 2 (50)

  • Mean age ± SD (years): treatment group 1 (38.5 ± 10.8); treatment group 2 (38.7 ± 12.0)

  • Sex ratio (M/F): treatment group 1 (1.9/1); treatment group 2 (1.6/1)

  • Exclusion criteria: not reported

Interventions Treatment group 1
  • ALG: 14 days; dose 5 mL/kg/d to max of 30 mL/d via CVC continuous IV infusion

  • PRED: 250 mg day 1, taper by 25 mg/d till 100 mg, then taper by 5 mg/d to 5 to 10 mg/d achieved

  • AZA: max 3 mg/kg/d, depending on WCC platelet count

  • AZA and ALG switched to CSA at day 14 or earlier if unable to tolerate complete ALG course

  • CSA: 8 mg/kg (2 doses), aim for trough levels of 300 ng/mL


Treatment group 2
  • ALG, AZA and steroids: given for 7 days post‐op; thereafter ALG and AZA switched to CSA

Outcomes
  • Death

  • Graft loss

  • DGF

  • Acute rejection

  • Infection

  • Tolerability of treatment

Notes
  • Funding source: not reported

Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Unlikely to influence outcomes
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Not specified if diagnosis of acute rejection was biopsy proven or clinical
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk All patient outcome data reported
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Unclear risk Unsure why acute rejection not reported beyond 3 weeks if there were any incidences of any other side effects such as malignancy/PTLD
Other bias Unclear risk Funding source not reported

Guttmann 1997.

Methods
  • Study design: parallel RCT

  • Study duration: not reported

  • Study follow‐up: 3 months

Participants
  • Country: European

  • Setting: multicentre

  • Inclusion criteria: DD kidney transplant recipients

  • Number: treatment group (147); control group (154)

  • Mean age ± SD (years): not reported

  • Sex (M/F): not reported

  • Exclusion criteria: not reported

Interventions Treatment group
  • Anti‐LFA‐1: 15 to 30 mg/day for 10 days

  • AZA and PRED

  • CSA: from day 9


Control group
  • CSA‐based ‘triple therapy’ from day 0

Outcomes
  • Patient survival

  • Graft survival

  • Incidence of acute rejection

  • Infection

  • Adverse events

Notes
  • Abstract‐only publication

  • 2 groups were ‘demographically comparable’

  • No figures reported for results

  • States patient survival, graft survival, incidence of acute rejection, infection and adverse events all similar at 3 months

  • Reports trend towards decreased DGF in Anti‐LFA‐1 group

  • No extractable data for review analyses

Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement; abstract only
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement; abstract only
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement; abstract only
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement; abstract only
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement; abstract only
Selective reporting (reporting bias) High risk No actual figures reported for any outcomes
Other bias High risk Abstract only publication, no full‐text publication identified

Halloran 1982.

Methods
  • Study design: parallel RCT

  • Study duration: not reported

  • Study follow‐up: all patients have been followed for at least 1 month (ALG: mean 5.7 months; CSA: mean 7.4 months)

Participants
  • Country: Canada

  • Setting: multicentre (2)

  • Inclusion criteria: DD kidney transplant recipients

  • Number: treatment group (19); control group (26)

  • Median age (years): treatment group (37); control group (37.5)

  • Sex (M): treatment group (68%); control group (62%)

  • Exclusion criteria: LD; acute or progressive liver disease; received any drug that caused hepatic or myelotoxicity ≤ 3 months prior to transplant; history of neoplasia; received cytotoxic drugs ≤ 3 months prior to transplant; positive Terasaki T‐cell crossmatch; previously entered this study; received < 2 units of whole blood or packed RBC 2 weeks or more before transplant; unable to ensure adequate follow‐up; < 12 years

Interventions Treatment group
  • mALG: pre‐op 10 mg/kg then 20 mg/kg/d via CVC over 8 to 24 hours

    • Usually 14 to 21 doses over 14 to 28 days (could be alternate day after day 14)

    • Adjusted as per WCC, platelet and lymphocyte counts.

  • AZA: 1 mg/kg during ALG, then increased as per WCC

  • PRED: dose not reported


Control group
  • CSA: 20 mg/kg pre‐op, then 20 mg/kg in 2 divided doses to maintain level of 100 to 400 ng/mL

  • PRED: alternate days from day 14 (dose not reported)

Outcomes
  • Death

  • Graft loss

  • CMV infection

  • Acute rejection

Notes
  • 2 centres used mALG for all ‘control’ (non CSA) patients. Results of these 2 centres combined in this report

  • Acute rejection reported as number of episodes per patient. Not included in review as analyses

  • Part of the Canadian Multicentre Cyclosporine Trial

Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Low risk Balance, restricted randomisation according to treatment centre; randomised block of varying size was generated
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Low risk Opaque envelopes held by the research pharmacist at each participating centre
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Unlikely to influence outcomes
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Unlikely to influence outcomes
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk 3 patients switched groups from control to mALG, not clear how analysed
Selective reporting (reporting bias) High risk Unable to include acute rejection results in the meta‐analysis
Other bias Low risk Appears free of other bias. Funded by grant from Medical Research council of Canada. Also grant from Conacher foundation

Hanaway 2011.

Methods
  • Study design: parallel RCT

  • Study duration: May 2005 to February 2006

  • Study follow‐up: 3 years

Participants
  • Country: USA

  • Setting: multicentre (30)

  • Inclusion criteria: ≥ 18 years; LD or DD recipient, high risk subgroup

  • Number: treatment group 1 (70); treatment group 2 (69)

  • Mean age ± SD (years): treatment group 1 (44.7 ± 12.8); treatment group 2 (48.5 ± 11.0)

  • Sex (M/F): treatment group 1 (37/33); treatment group 2 (39/30)

  • Ethnicity (White/black/other (%)): treatment group 1 (26/71/3); treatment group 2 (29/68/3)

  • LD/DD: treatment group 1 (28/42); treatment group 2 (26/43)

  • Exclusion criteria: expanded criteria donors; kidneys from donors without a heartbeat; kidneys with ischaemic times exceeding 36 hours; positive cytotoxic or flow‐cytometric cross‐matches; kidneys from HLA‐identical live donors

Interventions Treatment group 1
  • Alemtuzumab: 30 mg single IV infusion


Treatment group 2
  • rATG: 1.5 mg/kg given for 4 doses daily from day 0


Maintenance immunosuppression (both groups)
  • MMF: 1g twice a day

  • TAC: within 48 hours (or later if DGF), dose 0.1 to 0.2 mg/kg/d, 2 divided doses; trough target 7 to 14 ng/mL for 90 days, then 4 to 12 ng/mL

  • PRED: 1 g or less over 5 days

Outcomes
  • Biopsy‐proven acute rejection

  • Death

  • Graft loss

  • Infection

  • Adverse events

  • Cancer

Notes
  • Graft function ‐ reported as SCr similar at 1 year but actual figures not given

  • Funding source: sponsored by Astellas Pharma Global Development. "The study was conceived and designed by two academic and two industry authors. The manuscript was written by five academic and two industry authors, and all these authors made the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. The sponsor held the data, to which all authors had free access. Three academic and two industry authors analyzed the data"

Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk 'Automated system' used but not really clear.
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Randomisation stated but no information on method used is available. Even after reading supplementary appendix, info is still vague. 
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Unlikely to influence outcomes
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Unlikely to influence outcomes
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk All patient outcome data reported
Selective reporting (reporting bias) High risk All expected outcomes reported however SCr similar at 1 year but actual figures not given and cannot be meta‐analysed
Other bias Low risk Study appears free form other bias. Funding by Astellas Pharma Global Development

Hanto 1991.

Methods
  • Study design: parallel RCT

  • Study duration: May 1987 to December 1989

  • Study follow‐up: 3 years

Participants
  • Country: USA

  • Setting: single centre

  • Inclusion criteria: adult 1st DD kidney transplant recipients

  • Number: treatment group 1 (59); treatment group 2 (58)

  • Mean age ± SD (years): treatment group 1 (43 ± 11); treatment group 2 (44 ± 11)

  • Sex (M/F): treatment group 1 (31/28); treatment group 2 (40/18)

  • Ethnicity (white/black/other): treatment group 1 (40/19/0); treatment group 2 (31/26/1)

  • Exclusion criteria: not reported

Interventions Treatment group 1
  • ALG (Minnesota): 20 mg/kg/d for 7 days, ALG given 6 to 12 hours post‐op (risk of low platelets and bleeding)


Treatment group 2
  • OKT3: 5 mg/d for 7 days (given intra‐op)


Maintenance immunosuppression (both groups)
  • AZA: 2.5 mg/kg pre‐op then 2 to 2.5 mg/kg/d to maintain WCC > 3000/mm3

  • MP: 7 mg/kg pre‐op, then PRED 1 mg/kg, tapered to 0.3 mg/kg by 3 months, and 0.15 mg/kg by 12 months

  • CSA: 8 mg/kg/d from day 5 post‐op, trough level 175 to 200 ng/mL trough, tapered to 5 mg/kg by 9 months

Outcomes
  • Death

  • Graft loss

  • Acute rejection

  • CMV disease

  • Graft function

Notes
  • Infections reported but only as total number and number per patient (not reported as number of patients with infection)

  • Monitoring of CD3, 4 and 8 cells in both groups

  • Funding source; not reported

Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Unlikely to influence outcomes
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Unlikely to influence outcomes
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk All patient outcome data reported
Selective reporting (reporting bias) High risk All expected outcomes reported; unable to meta‐analyse infection data
Other bias Unclear risk Funding source not reported

Henry 2001.

Methods
  • Study design: parallel quasi‐RCT

  • Study duration: December 1995 to March 1997

  • Study follow‐up: minimum 24 months

Participants
  • Country: USA

  • Setting: single centre

  • Inclusion criteria: LD and DD kidney transplant recipients; only patients with good post‐op diuresis included (DGF excluded) ‘to avoid disadvantaging patients if in control group and getting immediate CSA with early dysfunction’

  • Number: treatment group (55); control group (49)

  • Mean age, range (years): treatment group (49, 16 to 76); control group (45, 16 to 74)

  • Sex (M/F): treatment group (40/15); control group (30/9)

  • Ethnicity (white/black): treatment group (43/12); control group (37/12)

  • LD/DD: treatment group (18/37); control group (10/39)

  • Exclusion criteria: DGF; not surviving past 3 months

Interventions Treatment group
  • OKT3: given for 5 to 7 days (dose not reported), until SCr 2.5 to 3 mg/dL

  • CSA: started with 1 day overlap with OKT3, trough target 250 mg/mL


Control group
  • CSA: started within 12 hours post‐op, trough target 250 mg/mL


Immunosuppression (both groups)
  • PRED: 2 mg/kg, weaned to 0.15 mg/kg by 3 months

  • MMF: 1 g twice daily

Outcomes
  • Death

  • Graft loss (death‐censored)

  • Acute rejection

  • CMV disease

Notes
  • Graft function reported but no SD or SE given, therefore cannot be included in analysis of this review

  • Funding source: supported by a grant from Orthi‐BioTech

Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) High risk Randomised according to whether patient record number ended in odd or even number
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Randomised according to whether patient record number ended in odd or even number.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Unlikely to influence outcomes
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Unlikely to influence outcomes although uncertain if acute rejection episodes were biopsy proven or clinically diagnosed
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk All patient outcome data reported
Selective reporting (reporting bias) High risk All expected outcomes reported however unable to included graft function in the meta‐analyses as no SD or SE reported
Other bias High risk Potential bias due to funding from OKT3 (Grant from Ortho Bio‐Tech – OKT3 manufacturer)

Hourmant 1985a.

Methods
  • Study design: parallel RCT; initial randomisation took place of the day of transplantation; a 2nd randomisation took place in the 3rd month post‐transplant

  • Study duration: not reported

  • Study follow‐up: 3 to 24 months

Participants
  • Country: France

  • Setting: single centre

  • Inclusion criteria: LD or DD kidney transplant recipients; 1st or 2nd transplant

  • Number: treatment group 1 (32); treatment group 2 (21); control group (35)

  • Mean age ± SD (years): not reported

  • Sex (M/F): not reported

  • Exclusion criteria: not reported

Interventions Treatment group 1
  • High dose CSA (Cys group II): 15 mg/kg/d

  • PRED: 1mg/kg/d


Control group
  • ATG (standard group): for 3 weeks (dose and manufacturer not reported)

  • PRED: 1 mg/kg

  • AZA: 2 to 3 mg/kg/d


2nd randomisation at 3 months of the control group only to continue with standard treatment or switch to low dose CSA monotherapy (6 mg/kg/d) (treatment group 2 ‐ Cys group I)
Outcomes
  • Death

  • Graft loss

  • Acute rejection

  • Graft function

  • Infection

Notes
  • Decision made not to use results in review analyses given double intervention of both induction and maintenance

  • Funding source: not reported

Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Some outcomes reported with insufficient detail to fully assess e.g. infection
Selective reporting (reporting bias) High risk Some outcomes reported with insufficient detail to fully assess
Other bias Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement

Hourmant 1996.

Methods
  • Study design: parallel RCT

  • Study duration: not reported

  • Study follow‐up: 1 year

Participants
  • Country: France

  • Setting: multicentre (5)

  • Inclusion criteria: adults 1st DD kidney transplant recipients; cold ischaemia time < 48 hours

  • Number: treatment group 1 (52); treatment group 2 (49)

  • Mean age ± SD (years): treatment group 1 (46 ± 11); treatment group 2 (45 ± 11)

  • Sex (M/F): treatment group 1 (34/18); treatment group 2 (39/10)

  • Exclusion criteria: hyperimmunized patients (> 75% PRA), patients transplanted across a positive historical cross‐match, focal glomerulosclerosis as the initial kidney disease, documented hepatopathy or a past history of malignancy

Interventions Treatment group 1
  • Anti‐LFA‐1: 30 mg via peripheral vein, over 30 min, 2 hours pre‐op; further daily dose of 15 mg days 2 to 10; circulating trough levels of anti‐LFA‐1 mAb measured


 Treatment group 2
  • rATG: 1.25 mg/kg/d over 4 hours via CVC/AVF; dose adjusted as per local protocols


Maintenance immunosuppression (both groups)
  • AZA: 2 mg/kg

  • MP: 5 mg/kg day before operation, then 1mg/kg PRED, taper by 10 mg/week

  • CSA: 8 mg/kg/d, from morning of 9th day; adjusted as per levels, as per each centre

  • Ongoing maintenance as per centre (either AZA/PRED or AZA/CSA or triple). ‘Distribution balanced between the 2 groups'

Outcomes
  • Death

  • Graft loss

  • Acute rejection

  • DGF

  • Tolerability

  • CMV disease

  • Infection

Notes
  • Graft function at 3 months given but graft survival at 3 months not reported. Therefore, cannot be used in review analyses

  • Funding source: not reported

Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Unlikely to influence outcomes
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Unlikely to influence outcomes; all acute rejection was biopsy‐proven
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk All patient outcome data reported
Selective reporting (reporting bias) High risk Graft survival at 3 months not reported
Other bias Unclear risk Funding source not reported

Jakobsen 1981.

Methods
  • Study design: parallel RCT

  • Study duration: February 1978 to September 1979

  • Study follow‐up: 2 years

Participants
  • Country: Norway, Sweden

  • Setting: multicentre (2)

  • Inclusion criteria: adult 1st DD kidney transplant recipients

  • Number: treatment group (30); control group (30)

  • Mean age, range (years): treatment group (52, 19 to 68); control group (47, 19 to 70)

  • Sex (M/F): treatment group (16/14); control group (20/10)

  • Exclusion criteria: not reported

Interventions Treatment group
  • ALG: 30 mg/kg/d for 21 days, starting day of transplant; given IV in 200 to 300 mL saline


Control group
  • No ALG


Immunosuppression (both groups)
  • AZA: 2 to 3 mg/kg, adjust as per WCC

  • PRED: 120 mg/d, taper to 40 mg/d by 1 month, taper to 15 mg/d by 1 year

Outcomes
  • Death

  • Graft loss

  • Acute rejection

Notes
  • Patients over 60 years: treatment group (10); control group (5)

  • Funding source: not reported

Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) High risk ‘patients allotted by drawing cards marked yes or no’; Half patients in each group in each centre
Allocation concealment (selection bias) High risk Drawing cards
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Unlikely to influence outcomes
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Unclear if acute rejection was biopsy‐proven acute rejection or clinical diagnosis
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk All patient outcome data reported
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk All expected outcomes reported
Other bias Unclear risk Funding source not reported

Kasiske 1997.

Methods
  • Study design: parallel RCT

  • Study duration: October 1994 to January 1996

  • Study follow‐up: 3 months

Participants
  • Country: USA

  • Setting: single centre

  • Inclusion criteria: adult DD or LD with one haplotype mismatch kidney transplant recipients

  • Number: treatment group (50); control group (50)

  • Mean age ± SD (years): treatment group (47.5 ± 13.1); control group (44.7 ± 14.5)

  • Sex (M): treatment group (66%); control group (52%)

  • DD/LD: treatment group (25/25) control group (33/17)

  • Exclusion criteria: allergy to diltiazem, ATG, or CSA; medical contraindication to diltiazem, such as sick sinus syndrome or second‐ or third degree atrioventricular block without a functioning ventricular pacemaker

Interventions Treatment group
  • hATG (ATGAM): 20 mg/kg IV daily for 7 to 14 days; withheld if platelet count < 70,000/mm3

    • ATG stopped after 4th dose CSA or dose 14 of ATG

  • CSA: 8 mg/kg/d (2 divided doses) once CrCl reached 30 mL/min; trough level 150 to 200 ng/mL until 8 weeks, then 75 to 100 ng/mL


Control group
  • CSA: 8 mg/kg at induction, then 8 mg/kg/d (2 divided doses)

  • Diltiazem: 0.28 mg/kg IV, then 0.002 mg/kg/min for 24 hours, then 60 mg oral sustained release twice/d


Immunosuppression (both groups)
  • MP: 1 g IV day 0; 500 mg IV day 1; /250 mg IV day 2; 125 mg IV day 3, then PRED 0.75 mg/kg tapered to 0.2 mg/kg by day 120

  • AZA: 5 mg/kg, decrease to 2 mg/kg day 3

Outcomes
  • Death

  • Graft loss

  • Acute rejection

  • DGF

  • CMV disease

Notes
  • Graft function up to 90 days reported as similar but actual values not given

  • Funding source: not reported

Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Unlikely to influence outcomes
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Unlikely to influence outcomes; all acute rejection was biopsy proven
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk All patient outcome data reported
Selective reporting (reporting bias) High risk Expected outcomes reported; unable to meta‐analyse graft function
Other bias Unclear risk Funding source not reported

Khosroshahi 2008.

Methods
  • Study design: parallel RCT

  • Study duration: 2004 to 2006

  • Study follow‐up: 1 month

Participants
  • Country: Iran

  • Setting: single centre

  • Inclusion criteria: > 14 years, LD kidney transplant recipients; PRA < 30%

  • Number: treatment group (31); control group (37)

  • Mean age ± SD (years): treatment group (36.4 ± 13.6); control group (36.0 ± 10.9)

  • Sex (M/F): treatment group (12/19); control group (20/17)

  • Exclusion criteria: simultaneous treatment with IL‐2RA; significant intraoperative or postoperative complications of transplantation

Interventions Treatment group
  • ATG: single dose (4 to 5 mg/kg given roughly 12 hours pre‐op)


Control group
  • No ATG


Immunosuppression (both groups)
  • CSA: 5 to 8 mg/kg

  • AZA (100 mg) or MMF (2 g)

  • MP: 1 g for 3 days, then 1 mg/kg, then tapered dose

Outcomes
  • Acute rejection in 1st month

  • Graft loss

Notes
  • SCr reported as similar at 1 month but actual values not given

  • Funding source: not reported

Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Unlikely to influence outcomes
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Acute rejection was both biopsy‐proven acute rejection and clinical
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk All patient outcome data reported
Selective reporting (reporting bias) High risk Limited outcomes reported and only very short‐term follow‐up
Other bias High risk Exclusion criteria included intra‐op and post‐op problems; patients would already have been entered prior to this. Therefore, were patients withdrawn after randomisation? No real details about this. Funding source not reported

Kountz 1977.

Methods
  • Study design: parallel RCT

  • Study duration: not reported

  • Study follow‐up: 2 years

Participants
  • Country: USA

  • Setting: single centre

  • Inclusion criteria: DD kidney transplant recipients

  • Number: treatment group (34); control group (32)

  • Mean age ± SD (years): not reported

  • Sex (M/F): not reported

  • Exclusion criteria: not reported

Interventions Treatment group
  • ATG (Upjohn Company): 750 mg IV daily for 14 days, then 7 doses on alternate days (1 month therapy total)

  • AZA: 150 mg/d

  • PRED: 120 mg/d, taper to 30 mg over 1 month


Control group
  • AZA: 150 mg/d

  • PRED: 120 mg/d, taper to 30 mg over 1 month

Outcomes
  • Death

  • Graft loss

  • Acute Rejection

Notes
  • Limited data given about other side effects

  • Funding source: Upjohn Company

Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Unlikely to influence outcomes
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Limited info about how acute rejection was diagnosed
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Other bias High risk Results seem to be a mixture of 2 studies. Initial study had 4 groups, including 2 x low dose ATG (1 x IV, 1 x IM). These 2 groups excluded after 15 patients in each group. Results combined with this study. Upjohn company funded study and provided the ATG; result in favour of ATG

Kreis 1980.

Methods
  • Study design: parallel RCT

  • Study duration: March 1977 to August 1978

  • Study follow‐up: 2 years

Participants
  • Country: France

  • Setting: single centre

  • Inclusion criteria: DD kidney transplant recipients

  • Number: treatment group (24); control group (25)

  • Mean age ± SD (years): treatment group (34.7 ± 1.7); control group (30.9 ± 1.5)

  • Sex (M/F): treatment group (18/6); control group (16/9)

  • Exclusion criteria: positive ATG skin test

Interventions Treatment group
  • hATG: 500 to 1250 mg (weight adjusted) daily for 2 weeks then alternate days for 2 weeks

    • Dose adjust according to level of rosette forming cells aiming to maintain at 10% of baseline

  • MP: 40 mg IV, immediately prior to each ATG (this was subtracted from total daily PRED dose)

  • PRED: 3 mg/kg/d, tapered over 10 weeks to 0.25 mg/kg


Control group
  • PRED: 3 mg/kg/d, tapered over 10 weeks to 0.25 mg/kg

Outcomes
  • Death

  • Graft loss

  • Bacterial infections

Notes
  • 'Reversible kidney failure episodes' but not specifically acute rejection reported, therefore not included in results of this review

Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Low risk Random‐number table used
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Low risk 'Physicians in charge of the patients were not aware of the list kept at the Upjohn Company'
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Unlikely to influence outcomes
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Not clear for 'reversible renal failure episodes' or acute rejection
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk All patient outcome data reported
Selective reporting (reporting bias) High risk Expected outcomes reported, however unsure if reversible kidney failure episodes is acute rejection and therefore results were not used
Other bias High risk ATG provided by Upjohn co and computer analysis also done by them

Kreis 1986.

Methods
  • Study design: parallel RCT

  • Study duration: not reported

  • Study follow‐up: 1 year

Participants
  • Country: France

  • Setting: single centre

  • Inclusion criteria: not reported

  • Number: treatment group (19); control group (18)

  • Mean age ± SD (years): not reported

  • Sex (M/F): not reported

  • Exclusion criteria: not reported

Interventions Treatment group
  • OKT3: 5 mg/d IV for 15 days minimum, continued to 30 days if no antibodies (if T3 marker remained ≤ 30%)


Control group
  • No OKT3


Immunosuppression (both groups)
  • AZA: dose not reported

  • Low dose PRED: dose not reported

Outcomes
  • Death

  • Graft loss

  • Acute rejection

Notes
  • 60 patients into 3 groups, 4 patients excluded early for technical reasons (immediately after randomisation)

  • Low dose PRED group to be used for comparisons in this review as maintenance identical to OKT3 group

  • Funding source: not reported

Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Unlikely to influence outcomes
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement if acute rejection episodes were biopsy proven or not
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Other bias Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement and funding source not declared

Kumar 1998a.

Methods
  • Study design: parallel RCT

  • Study duration: March 1996 to March 1997

  • Study follow‐up: 1 year

Participants
  • Country: USA

  • Setting: single centre

  • Inclusion criteria: DD kidney transplant recipients

  • Number: treatment group 1 (26); treatment group 2 (24)

  • Mean age ± SD (years): treatment group 1 (42.21 ± 18.82); treatment group 2 (44.22 ± 16.56)

  • Sex (M/F): treatment group 1 (14/10); treatment group 2 (15/11)

  • Exclusion criteria: not reported

Interventions Treatment group 1
  • hATG (ATGAM): daily dose adjusted to maintain peripheral CD3 count between 50 to 100/µL


Treatment group 2
  • OKT3: daily dose adjusted to maintain peripheral CD3 count between 50 to 100/µL


Immunosuppression (both groups)
  • CNI (CSA or TAC): started 5 to 7 days post‐transplant, troughs CSA: 250 to 300 ng/mL, TAC: 10 to 15 ng/mL

  • PRED: does not reported

  • MMF or AZA: dose not reported

Outcomes
  • Death

  • Graft loss

  • Acute rejection

  • Infection

Notes
  • Funding source: not reported

Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Other bias Unclear risk Funding source not specified

Launois 1977.

Methods
  • Study design: parallel RCT

  • Study duration: not reported

  • Study follow‐up: 2 years

Participants
  • Country: France

  • Setting: single centre

  • Inclusion criteria: DD kidney transplant recipients; ABO compatibility and negative lymphocytotoxic cross‐match

  • Number: treatment group (21); control group (15)

  • Mean age ± SD (years):not reported

  • Sex (M/F): not reported

  • 2nd transplant: treatment group (2); control group (1)

  • Exclusion criteria: not reported

Interventions Treatment group
  • ALG (horse, Merieux, Lyon): 10 mg/kg/d IV for 14 days, then 252 mg IM every other day for 14 days, then twice/week until end of 4th month 


Control group
  • No ALG


Immunosuppression (both groups)
  • AZA: 5 mg/kg day 1, then 1 to 2 mg/kg, adjusted for WCC

  • PRED: 1 mg/kg/d, reduced by 5 mg every 5 days to 30 mg by 1 month, then 25 mg by 6 months

Outcomes
  • Death

  • Graft loss

  • Acute rejection

Notes
  • Limited information on additional outcomes

  • Funding source: supported in part by a grant from the University of Rennes

Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Unlikely to influence outcomes
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Unlikely to influence outcomes
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk All patient outcome data reported
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk All expected outcomes reported
Other bias Low risk Supported by a grant from University of Rennes

Lazarovits 1993.

Methods
  • Study design: parallel RCT

  • Study duration: February 1991 to August 1991

  • Study follow‐up: 4 to 10 months

Participants
  • Country: Canada

  • Setting: single centre

  • Inclusion criteria: 1st DD kidney transplant recipients aged 18 to 65 years

  • Number: treatment group (10); control group (10)

  • Mean age ± SD (years): not reported

  • Sex (M/F): not reported

  • Exclusion criteria: participation in another study using an investigational immunosuppressive new drug within 8 wk before entry into or during participation in the study; significant liver or cardiac impairment or total lymphocyte count < 1000 cells/mm3 active infection; current positive T cell cross‐match against the donor; multiple organ transplant (heart/kidney, liver/kidney); history of malignancy: HIV or Hep B positive serologies; pregnancy

Interventions Treatment group
  • CD7 human‐mouse chimeric mAb (SDZCHH380): 30 mg IV, 6 doses, days 0 (1 to 6 h pre‐op), days 2, 6, 11, 17 and 24

  • CSA: 3 mg/kg IV infusion in recovery, switch to oral 8 mg/kg when able, aim for target trough of 250 to 450 ng/mL


Control group
  • OKT3: 10 doses, 5 mg dose, day 0 (in theatre), then once/d

  • CSA: 2 mg/kg IV, then 6 mg/kg oral, target level 150 to 350 ng/mL, then target 250 to 450 ng/mL once OKT3 complete

  • AZA: 25 mg pre‐op and while on OKT3 to try to prevent anti‐mouse antibodies


Immunosuppression (both groups)
  • MP‐PRED: 250 mg 1 hour before 1st dose of SDZCHH380, then 1 mg/kg, decreased by 5 mg/d until 20 mg, then decreased until 15 mg on alternate days

Outcomes
  • Death

  • Graft loss

  • Acute rejection

  • Infection

Notes
  • Small numbers only

  • Clinical tolerance better in CD7 group but not reported in these results as not pre‐specified outcome

  • Acute rejection diagnosis was clinical and/or biopsy (FNA or core)

  • Funding source: supported in part by a grant from the Kidney Foundation of Canada and by Sandoz Canada Inc

Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes High risk Not blinded and therefore high risk for certain outcomes, e.g. tolerance of antibody therapy
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes High risk No blinding and acute rejection could be diagnosed clinically
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk All patient outcome data reported
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk All expected outcomes reported
Other bias Unclear risk Funded by grants from Kidney Foundation of Canada and Sandoz Canada Inc (CD7 manufacturer)

Lu 2011.

Methods
  • Study design: parallel RCT

  • Study duration: October 2007 to December 2009

  • Study follow‐up: median follow‐up 338 days

Participants
  • Country: China

  • Setting: single centre

  • Inclusion criteria: DD kidney transplant recipients; high immunological risk PRA ≥ 10%

  • Number: treatment group 1 (11); treatment group 2 (11)

  • Mean age ± SD (years): treatment group 1 (38.9 ± 4.2); treatment group 2 (40.8 ± 4.4)

  • Sex (M/F): treatment group 1 (5/6); treatment group 2 (4/7)

  • 1st/2nd/3rd transplant: treatment group 1 (6/5/0); treatment group 2 (5/5/1)

  • Exclusion criteria: not reported

Interventions Treatment group 1
  • Alemtuzumab: 15 mg before reperfusion and 15 mg 24 hours post op

  • MP: 500 mg bolus prior to completion of anastomoses and 8 mg/kg/d for 3 days post‐op


Treatment group 2
  • rATG: 9 mg/kg single bolus given 2 hours pre‐op

  • MP: 500 mg bolus prior to completion of anastomoses and 8 mg/kg/d for 3 days post‐op


Maintenance immunosuppression (both groups)
  • MMF: 1 g twice daily started 1 day pre‐op, then 0.5 to 1 g twice daily

  • TAC: started 2 days post‐op, 0.1 mg/kg/d aiming for trough of 10 to 13 ng/mL for month 1, 8 to 10ng/mL to month 3, 6 to 8 ng/mL to month 6, 4 to 6 ng/mL to month 12

Outcomes
  • Death

  • Graft loss

  • Acute rejection

  • Infection

  • Malignancy

  • Cumulative graft survival

Notes
  • Graft function and WCC count reported but not able to be used for review analysis as no figures given

  • Reported as SCr and urea similar both groups

  • WCC counts significantly reduced in alemtuzumab group at most time points up to 6 months

  • Funding source: Supported by grant from Fujian Key Laboratory of Transplant Biology (No. 2008J1006)

Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Open label but probably low risk given hard outcomes
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk As above; all acute rejection was biopsy‐proven acute rejection
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk All patient outcome data reported
Selective reporting (reporting bias) High risk All expected outcomes reported; graft function, WCC count could not be included in our meta‐analyses
Other bias Low risk None apparent. Supported by grant from Fujian Key Laboratory of Transplant Biology (No. 2008J1006)

Maiorca 1984.

Methods
  • Study design: parallel RCT

  • Study duration: not reported

  • Study follow‐up: 12 months

Participants
  • Country: Italy

  • Setting: single centre

  • Inclusion criteria: 1st DD kidney transplant recipients

  • Number: not reported

  • Mean age ± SD (years): not reported

  • Sex (M/F): not reported

  • Exclusion criteria: not reported

Interventions Treatment group
  • ALG: 20 mg/kg for 1st 14 days

    • 20 mg/kg for 10 days if any acute rejection episode


Control group
  • No ALG


Immunosuppression (both groups)
  • AZA: 5 mg/kg

  • MP: 200 mg IV on induction then 6 hourly for 3 further doses

  • AZA: after MP 1.5 mg/kg and PRED 20 mg; AZA increased to 3 mg/kg when CrCl > 20 mL/min

  • PRED: taper to 10 mg after 6 months

Outcomes
  • Death

  • Graft loss

Notes
  • Abstract‐only publication

  • Acute rejection reported in study as number of rejection episodes/patient. Total number of patients with acute rejection not reported, therefore this outcome is not included in the review

  • Reported as higher percent of bacterial infections in ALG group but not statistically significant. Viral infections same. Types of infection and figures not disclosed

  • Funding source: not reported

Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Unlikely to influence outcomes
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Unlikely to influence outcomes
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Selective reporting (reporting bias) High risk Acute rejection, infection could not be used in our meta‐analyses
Other bias Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement, funding not reported

Margreiter 2008.

Methods
  • Study design: parallel RCT

  • Study duration: January 2004 to June 2005

  • Study follow‐up: 1 year

Participants
  • Country: Germany, Austria

  • Setting: multicentre (4)

  • Inclusion criteria: 1st DD kidney transplant recipients aged 18 to 65

  • Number: treatment group (65); control group (66)

  • Mean age ± SD (years): treatment group (50 ± 13.1); control group (45 ± 14.9)

  • Sex (M/F): treatment group (37/28); control group (34/32)

  • Exclusion criteria: positive cross match against donor cells; PRA > 25%; previous kidney transplant; multiorgan recipients previous treatment with alemtuzumab; the use of other investigational agents within 6 weeks; active systemic infection; HIV‐positive patients or donors, autoimmune haemolytic anaemia; history of anaphylaxis following exposure to humanized monoclonal antibodies; pregnant or breast‐feeding women; LD recipients

Interventions Treatment group
  • MP: 250 mg immediately post‐op and on day 1

  • Alemtuzumab: 20 mg 1 hour later, over 3 to 6 hours and the same on day 1

  • TAC: on day 3, 0.05 mg/kg twice daily, trough target levels 8 to 12 ng/mL for 6 months then 5 to 8 ng/mL, aimed for above 10 ng/mL in 1st 3 months


Control group
  • TAC: pre‐op or immediately post theatre same dose, same targets as treatment group

  • MMF: 1 to 1.5 g/d (adjusted if evidence of clinical toxicity)

  • Steroids as per local regimen

    • 3 centres: 500 mg on day 2, tapered to 25 mg by day 10, tapered to 5 mg at 1 year

    • 4th centre: 200 mg PRED day of transplant, reduced to 20 mg by day 10 and 5 mg by 1 year 

Outcomes
  • Biopsy‐proven acute rejection (6 and 12 months)

  • Patient survival at 12 months

  • Graft survival at 12 months

  • Adverse event

Notes
  • Graft function for both groups similar at 12 months. Figures not able to be used as no SD given in study

  • All clinical suspected acute rejection had to have biopsy, all later confirmed by 1 x histopathologist

  • Funding source: supported by Astellas Pharma GmbH, Munich

Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Unlikely to influence outcomes
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Unlikely to influence outcomes but not clear if the biopsy reviewer was blinded to the treatment group
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk All patient outcome data reported
Selective reporting (reporting bias) High risk Outcomes reported as per protocol (as per Clinicaltrials.gov); however unable to meta‐analyse the graft function results (no SD)
Other bias High risk Supported by Astellas Pharma GmbH, Munich (Tacrolimus supplier)

Martins 2004.

Methods
  • Study design: parallel RCT

  • Study duration: not reported

  • Study follow‐up: 24 months

Participants
  • Country: Portugal

  • Setting: single centre

  • Inclusion criteria:

  • Number: treatment group (22); control group (23)

  • Mean age, range: 39, 19 to 67 years

  • Sex (F): 63%

  • Exclusion criteria: not reported

Interventions Treatment group
  • ATG: single bolus 9 mg/kg prior to surgery


Control group
  • No ATG


Immunosuppression (both groups) 
  • AZA, CSA, PRED (dosage not reported)

Outcomes
  • Graft survival

  • Patient survival

  • Acute rejection

  • Steroid‐resistant acute rejection

Notes
  • Abstract‐only publication; stated ‘groups were comparable’

  • Divided into high immunological risk (PRA > 50%, 2nd or more allograft, cold ischaemia time 24 hours) or normal risk

  • High risk bolus (10): high risk standard (5); normal risk bolus (22); normal risk standard (23). Only 'normal risk' patient groups will be compared in this review

  • SCr reported as similar in all 4 groups, values not given. 

  • ‘ATG did not increase infection rate’, figures not given

  • Funding source: not reported ‐ one author and employee of Fresenius

Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Unlikely to influence outcomes
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Unlikely to influence outcomes but unclear if acute rejection was clinical diagnosis or biopsy‐proven acute rejection
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement; 2 patients excluded from analyses due to death with a functioning graft; probably should have been included
Selective reporting (reporting bias) High risk SCr and infection could not be included in our meta‐analyses
Other bias High risk Funding not reported, but one of the co‐authors is from Fresenius Biotech

Michael 1989.

Methods
  • Study design: parallel RCT

  • Study duration: December 1985 to March 1988

  • Study follow‐up: 1 year

Participants
  • Country: USA

  • Setting: single centre

  • Inclusion criteria: DD kidney transplant recipients with DGF at 24 hours post‐op (urine output < 700 mL over 1st 24 hours and no fall in SCr)

  • Number (randomised/analysed): treatment group (21/19); control group (30/26)

  • Mean age ± SD (years): not reported

  • Sex (M/F): not reported

  • Exclusion criteria: not reported

Interventions Initial treatment (both groups)
  • CSA: 12 mg/kg/d (oral) or 4 mg/kg/d (IV) for 24 hours


Treatment group
  • ALG: 20 mg/kg/d with dose adjustment based on WCC and platelet counts

  • Upon resolution of DGF CSA reinstated at 10 mg/kg/d and adjusted to levels of 100 to 150 ng/mL


Control group
  • CSA: dose lowered to 10 mg/kg/d adjusted to keep levels of 100 to 150 ng/mL


Reassessment after 2 weeks
Outcomes
  • Duration of DGF

  • Mean length of hospital stay

  • SCr at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months (SCr figures given but no SD or SE therefore, not able to be included in review analyses)

  • Graft survival (shown as graph only but no figures given)

Notes
  • No extractable data available for review outcomes

  • Patients whose grafts never functioned were excluded form analyses

  • Funding source: not reported

Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Low risk Randomisation via computerised random number generation
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Unlikely to influence outcomes
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Unclear whether all acute rejection was biopsy proven (likely yes while patient had DGF but unclear if diagnosed after graft started functioning)
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes High risk Patients whose grafts never functioned were excluded from the analyses
Selective reporting (reporting bias) High risk No extractable data available for review outcomes, SD and SE not reported; several results only presented as figures
Other bias Unclear risk Funding not reported

Minnesota Study 1982.

Methods
  • Study design: parallel RCT; stratified for age (18 to 40; 41 to 55), diabetes, donor source, 1st or 2nd transplant

  • Study duration: September 1980 to December 1983

  • Study follow‐up: 2.5 to 6 years (mean 46 months)

Participants
  • Country: USA

  • Setting: single centre

  • Inclusion criteria: 1st or 2nd LD or DD kidney transplant recipients from HLA mismatched donors; aged 18 and 55 years; no previous history of malignancy or liver disease; in the retransplant group, the 1st graft must have functioned for at least 1 year

  • Number: treatment group (109); control group (121)

  • Mean age ± SD (years): treatment group (34.9 ± 8.7); control group (35.0 ± 8.6)

  • Sex (M/F): treatment group (69/40); control group (76/45)

  • LD/DD: treatment group (40/69); control group (48/73)

  • Exclusion criteria: not reported

Interventions Treatment group
  • mALG: 30 mg/kg/d as IV infusion for 14 doses

  • AZA: 5 mg/kg/d for 3 days, tapered by 0.5 mg/kg/d to 2.5 mg/kg/d, dose adjusted further to maintain a WCC ≥ 4000/mm3 

  • PRED: 2 mg/kg/d for 3 days, then tapered to 0.5 mg/kg/d by 3 months


Control group
  • CSA: 14 mg/kg /day for 1 week post‐op, then 12 mg/kg/d, trough level of 100 to 200 ng/mL and SCr < 2 mg/dL

  • PRED: 2 mg/kg/d for 3 days, decreased until 0.5 mg/kg/d by 1 month, then gradual taper to 0.2 mg/kg/d by 1 year

Outcomes
  • Death

  • Graft loss

  • DGF

  • Acute rejection

  • Graft function

  • Bacterial, viral, fungal infections

  • CMV

  • PTLD

  • Leucopenia

  • NODAT

Notes
  • Multiple different reports of the same study, patient numbers in each group seems to vary in the different reports

  • Funding source: supported in part by a grant from NIH

Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk Stratified but method not specified
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Unlikely to influence outcomes
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Unlikely to influence outcomes
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk All patient outcome data reported
Selective reporting (reporting bias) High risk All expected outcomes reported, however patient numbers vary in the different reports of this study
Other bias Unclear risk Funding not fully disclosed. Supported in part by a grant from NIH

Morales 1994a.

Methods
  • Study design: parallel RCT

  • Study duration: not reported

  • Study follow‐up: 2 years

Participants
  • Country: Spain

  • Setting: multicentre (14)

  • Inclusion criteria: 1st DD kidney transplant recipients, aged > 50 years

  • Number: treatment group (41); control group (44)

  • Mean age ± SD (years): treatment group (59 ± 4); control group (58 ± 6)

  • Sex (M/F): treatment group (23/18); control group (29/15)

  • Exclusion criteria: hyperimmunised patients (HLA > 50%); chronic hepatopathy; Hep B‐antigen positive; diabetes, haemolytic uraemic syndrome

Interventions Treatment group
  • OKT3: 5 mg/d for 4 days

  • CSA: 10 mg/kg/d, tapered slowly to maintain trough of 150 to 250 ng/mL


Control group
  • CSA: 10 mg/kg/d, tapered slowly to maintain trough of 150 to 250 ng/mL

  • PRED: 0.3 mg/kg/d, lower by 2.5 mg every 15 days until 10 mg/d

Outcomes
  • Death

  • Graft loss

  • Acute rejection

  • DGF

Notes
  • Graft function also reported but no SD or SE included, therefore cannot be used in review analyses

  • Funding source: not reported

Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Unlikely to influence outcomes
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement if acute rejection episodes were biopsy‐proven acute rejection
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Selective reporting (reporting bias) High risk SD and SE not reported for graft function; complications such as infection or malignancy not well reported
Other bias Unclear risk Funding source not reported

Mourad 1998.

Methods
  • Study design: parallel RCT; stratified by centre

  • Study duration: November 1995 to July 1997

  • Study follow‐up: 12 months

Participants
  • Country: France, Belgium

  • Setting: multicentre (15)

  • Inclusion criteria: 1st or 2nd DD kidney transplant recipients

  • Number (randomised/analysed): treatment group (153/151); control group (159/158)

  • Mean age, range (years): treatment group (43.2, 18 to 66); control group (42.8, 19 to 60)

  • Sex (M/5): treatment group (97/54); control group (113/48)

  • White/black/oriental/other: treatment group (136/9/3/3); control group (141/7/3/7)

  • Exclusion criteria: positive T‐cell cross‐match on the most recent serum specimen; intolerant to steroids, macrolides, HCO‐60, or ATG; symptoms or had, during the last 5 years, any history of neoplastic disease of any type; systemic infections requiring therapy; a significant liver disease, active collagen‐vascular disease; pregnant or breast feeding; participation in another clinical study in the past 28 days; HIV positive; history of substance abuse; psychiatric disorder; condition of noncompliance; receiving another organ transplant, other than a kidney

Interventions Treatment group
  • ATG: 1.25 mg/kg/d for 10 days.

  • TAC: started on day 9 at a dose of 0.2 mg/kg/d


Control group
  • TAC: started within 24 hours of completion of anastomosis at an initial dose of 0.2 mg/kg/d


Immunosuppression (both groups)
  • TAC: initial dose 0.2 mg/kg/d, target trough of 10 to 15 ng/mL for 1st 6 weeks; target trough 5 to 10 ng/mL to 3 months, then target < 10 ng/mL

  • MP: 500 mg day 0, 125 mg day 1, then 20 mg PRED for 2 weeks tapered to 10 mg from 1 to 3 months, then 5 mg/day 

  • AZA: 1 to 2 mg/kg from day 0

Outcomes
  • Death

  • Graft loss

  • Biopsy‐proven acute rejection

  • Adverse events

Notes
  • 24 and 17 withdrawals in each group respectively. Results given as ITT. Main reason for withdrawal was early graft failure (e.g. primary non‐function, thrombosis, refractory acute rejection), then adverse events (neurologic events (2), worsening diabetes (2), acute respiratory distress syndrome (1) – all in ATG group)

  • Graft function similar at 12 months, not included as no SD given

  • Funding source: Fujisawa GmbH

Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Low risk Randomisation list generated centrally. Patients randomised 1:1 and stratified by centre
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Low risk Sealed envelopes opened post‐op
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Unlikely to influence outcomes
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Unlikely to influence outcomes (all acute rejection was biopsy‐proven acute rejection)
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Relatively large drop out numbers in each group; ITT results reported
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk All expected outcomes reported
Other bias High risk Funded by Fujisawa GmbH (TAC manufacturers)

Niaudet 1990.

Methods
  • Study design: parallel RCT

  • Study duration: September 1987 to May 1988

  • Study follow‐up: not reported

Participants
  • Country: France

  • Setting: single centre

  • Inclusion criteria: children, 1st DD kidney transplant recipients

  • Number: treatment group 1 (14); treatment group 2 (14)

  • Mean age ± SD (years): not reported

  • Sex (M/F): not reported

  • Exclusion criteria: not reported

Interventions Treatment group 1
  • OKT3 (Cilag): 1 mL/10 kg up to 40 kg, 5 mL if over 40 kg, given for 21 days

    • Given via peripheral vein over 2 min, 1st dose prior to reperfusion


Treatment group 2
  • ALG (Merieux) 1mL/kg via AVF or CVC via IV infusion over 12 h; given for 21 days


Immunosuppression (both groups)
  • AZA: 0.75 to 1.5 mg/kg/d

  • PRED: 60 mg/m2/d, tapered to 30 mg/m2 by day 30

  • CSA: 150 mg/m2 from day 18, adjusted to maintain level 100 to 200 ng/mL

Outcomes
  • Patient survival

  • Graft survival

  • Acute rejection

  • Infection

  • Other side effects

Notes
  • No table 1, states similar for age, sex, previous blood transfusions, HLA, PRA, cold ischaemia time

  • There was also a 2nd part to paper about high dose versus low dose OKT3. There was limited info but low and high dose groups did not appear to be randomised. This data therefore not included

  • Funding source: not reported

Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Unlikely to influence outcomes
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Unlikely to influence outcomes
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk All patient outcome data reported
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk All expected outcomes reported
Other bias Unclear risk Funding source not reported

Norman 1988.

Methods
  • Study design: parallel RCT

  • Study duration: July 1986 to August 1987

  • Study follow‐up: 4 to 16 months

Participants
  • Country: USA

  • Setting: single centre

  • Inclusion criteria: adult DD kidney transplant recipients

  • Number (randomised/analysed): 80/72; treatment group (34); control group (38)

  • Mean age ± SD (years): not reported

  • Sex (M/F): 42/38

  • Exclusion criteria: no exclusions based on age or underlying cause of kidney failure

Interventions Treatment group
  • OKT3: 5mg/d for 14 days

  • MP: 500 mg

  • AZA: 2 mg/kg/d for 2 weeks; tapered to 1 mg/kg/d by 9 months

  • PRED: 0.5 mg/kg/d for 2 weeks, tapered to 0.1 mg/kg/d by 5 months

  • CSA: from day 11 at 5 mg/kg/d from day 14


Control group
  • AZA: 2 mg/kg/d for 2 weeks, tapered to 1 mg/kg/d by 9 months

  • PRED: 1 mg/kg/d for 2 weeks, 0.5 mg/kg/d for 2 weeks, tapered to 0.1 by 5 months

  • CSA: 5 mg/kg/d for 2 weeks, 4 mg/kg 4 to 12 months, 3 mg/kg after 12 months

Outcomes
  • Death

  • Graft loss

  • DGF

  • Acute rejection

  • Graft function

Notes
  • Acute rejection episodes treated differently

    • OKT3 group: treated with increased oral PRED

    • control group: treated with either OKT3 or oral PRED

  • Funding source: supported by Ortho Pharmaceutical Corporation

Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Unlikely to influence outcomes
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Unlikely to influence outcomes
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes High risk 8 patients excluded from analyses; 6 excluded as received grafts form donor under age 5 years (historically poor outcomes); 2 excluded in OKT3 group as only received 1 or 2 doses of OKT3 (reasons not reported)
Selective reporting (reporting bias) High risk Some expected outcomes not reported
Other bias Unclear risk 'Supported by Ortho Pharmaceutical' (OKT3 manufacturers)

Norman 1993.

Methods
  • Study design: parallel RCT

  • Study duration: not reported

  • Study follow‐up: 5 years

Participants
  • Country: USA

  • Setting: multicentre (5 centres)

  • Inclusion criteria: adults and children DD kidney transplant recipients

  • Number: treatment group (105); control group (102)

  • Median age, range (years): treatment group (43, 12 to 73); control group (40, 10 to 66)

  • Sex (M/F): treatment group (67/38); control group (64/38)

  • Transplant (1st/2nd/more than 1): treatment group (94/9/2); control group (85/16/1)

  • Ethnicity (white/non‐white): treatment group (77/28); control group (73/29)

  • Diabetic: treatment group (23); control group (30)

  • Exclusion criteria: donor < 2 years; evidence of fluid overload; evidence of congestive heart failure; previous exposure to OKT3; lactating or pregnant women

Interventions Treatment group
  • OKT3: 5 mg/d from day 0 for 10 to 14 doses

  • MP: 0.5 to 2 g prior to 1st dose OKT3

  • AZA: 2.5 mg/kg/d, taper after day 11 as per centre protocol

  • PRED: 0.25 to 0.5 mg/kg day 0 to 10, taper to maintenance dose as per centre protocol

  • CSA: 6 to 12 mg/kg/d, from day 11 onwards


Control group
  • AZA: 2.5 mg/kg/d, taper as per centre protocol

  • PRED‐MP: 0.5 to 2 g MP prior to transplant; 1 mg/kg/d, then taper to maintenance dose as per centre protocol

  • CSA: 6 to 12 mg/kg/d

Outcomes
  • Death (5 years)

  • Graft loss (5 years)

  • Acute rejection (1 year)

  • Infection (6 months)

  • DGF

  • Malignancy (2 years)

  • Graft function (12 months)

Notes
  • Possibly continuation of study from Norman 1988 (however, intervention protocols documented are different)

  • Funding source: R.W. Johnson Pharmaceutical Research Institute

Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk Randomisation stated but insufficient information to permit judgement
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Unlikely to influence outcomes
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Unlikely to influence outcomes
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Safety analyses 111 versus 104 included (215 total)
Efficacy analyses 105 versus 102 included (207 total)
224 patients entered into the study
9 patients excluded after randomisation as 'not treated' (whether this means not transplanted or not treated as per protocol is not reported)
Additional 8 patients excluded from efficacy analyses and therefore included only in safety analyses (6 paediatric patients and 2 patients who did not follow randomisation schedule)
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk All expected outcomes reported
Other bias High risk Funded by RW Johnson pharmaceutical research institute; corresponding author is an employee of RW Johnson

Norman 1993a.

Methods
  • Study design: parallel RCT

  • Study duration: July 1990 to August 1991

  • Study follow‐up: 12 months

Participants
  • Country: USA

  • Setting: single centre

  • Inclusion criteria: 18 to 50 years; 1st DD kidney transplant recipients

  • Number: treatment group 1 (13); treatment group 2 (13)

  • Mean age (years): treatment group 1 (39); treatment group 2 (37)

  • Sex (M/F): treatment group (5/8); treatment group 2 (11/2)

  • Diabetic: treatment group 1 (4); treatment group 2 (1)

  • Exclusion criteria: "entrance criteria were chosen to minimize both recipient and donor factors that could lead to graft dysfunction or loss not due to immunologic causes"

Interventions Treatment group 1
  • High dose OKT3: 5 mg/day for 12 days, starting in operating theatre 


Treatment group 2
  • Low dose OKT3: 1 mg/d for 2 days, then 2 mg/d for 10 days


Immunosuppression (both groups)
  • AZA: 5 mg/kg (IV), then 2 mg/kg (oral)

  • MP‐PRED: MP 500 mg in operating theatre then 125 mg twice/d day 1, then PRED 1 mg/kg day 2 tapered to 0.4 mg/kg by end of 1 month, tapered to 0.1 mg/kg by end of 5 months

  • CSA: 7 mg/kg/d at day 5

Outcomes
  • Death

  • Graft loss

  • Acute rejection

  • DGF

  • Infection

  • Side effects

Notes
  • More women and diabetics in high dose group (but only small numbers)

  • Graft function at 12 months reported in study but not SD or SE given, results therefore not included in this review

  • All patients in both groups had features of Cytokine Release Syndrome

  • Funding source: not reported

Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk limited info. ‘The patients were randomised in blocks of four patients’. 
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Low risk Randomisation schedule kept by pharmacy
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Patients, nurses and doctors all blinded
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Unlikely to influence outcomes
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk All patient outcome data reported
Selective reporting (reporting bias) High risk SD/SE not reported for graft function and cannot be meta‐analysed
Other bias Unclear risk Funding source not reported

Norrby 1997.

Methods
  • Study design: parallel RCT

  • Study duration: not reported

  • Study follow‐up: 6 months

Participants
  • Country: Sweden

  • Setting: single centre

  • Inclusion criteria: adults with ‘indication for ATG induction therapy within 48 hours of surgery’ (higher risk group)

  • Number: treatment group 1 (45); treatment group 2 (45)

  • Mean age (years): treatment group 1 (49.1); treatment group 2 (47.8)

  • Sex (M/F): treatment group 1 (28/17); treatment group 2 (29/16)

  • LD/DD: treatment group 1 (4/41); treatment group 2 (1/44)

  • Exclusion criteria: not reported

Interventions Treatment group 1
  • ATG (Fresenius): 5 mg/kg/d for 4 to 7 days


Treatment group 2
  • ATG (Merieux): 2.5 mg/kg/d for 4 to 7 days


Immunosuppression (both groups)
  • Not reported

Outcomes
  • Acute rejection

  • CMV infection

Notes
  • Outcomes of death, patient survival and graft function all reported as 'no significant difference'. No numbers given, therefore not able to be included as outcomes in this review.

  • Acute rejection rates are high in both groups in this study. Likely explained as patients are probably a high risk group immunologically

  • Funding source: Gothenburg University, Riksforbundet Njursjuka, Njursjukas forening i Vast Sverige, and Gelins Minnesfond

Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Unlikely to influence outcomes
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Unlikely to influence outcomes
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes High risk Denominators sometimes unclear
Selective reporting (reporting bias) High risk Outcomes reported but actual numbers not given, therefore difficult to verify data
Other bias Unclear risk Unclear due to limited information. Funding from 4 different groups: Gothenburg University, Riksforbundet Njursjuka, Njursjukas forening i Vast Sverige, and Gelins Minnesfond.

Novick 1983.

Methods
  • Study design: parallel RCT

  • Study duration: October 1978 to October 1980

  • Study follow‐up: to 42 months

Participants
  • Country: USA

  • Setting: single centre

  • Inclusion criteria: 1st DD kidney transplant recipients with no history of allergic reactions or prior exposure to horse serum protein

  • Number: treatment group (31); control group (36)

  • Mean age ± SD (years): not reported

  • Sex (M/F): treatment group (26/5); control group (30/6)

  • Ethnicity (Caucasian/other): treatment group (28/3); control group (29/7)

  • Exclusion criteria: not reported

Interventions Treatment group
  • ALG: 30 mg/kg/d for 14 days


Control group
  • Placebo: 30 mg/kg/d of human albumin solution for 14 days


Immunosuppression (both groups)
  • AZA: 3 to 5 mg/kg pre‐op, then 1.5 to 2 mg daily

  • MP‐PRED: 1 g in operating theatre, then 2 mg/kg/d PRED post‐op, rapid taper over 2 months to 0.6 mg/kg/d, then slow decrease to 0.25 mg/kg/d

Outcomes
  • Death

  • Graft loss

  • Acute rejection

  • Adverse events

Notes
  • ALG group: 4 excluded as received < 50% ALG dose

  • Funding source: not reported

Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk Previously numbered drug vials’ but not clear how sequence generated
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Low risk Randomised via a central office at the University of Minnesota
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Unlikely to influence outcomes
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Unlikely to influence outcomes
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Patients only receiving 50% of ALG total dose or less were excluded from results (4/35; 10% of group (2 withdrew, 2 unable to tolerate due to side effects)
Not certain if these patients would have altered outcomes if included
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk All expected outcomes reported
Other bias Low risk University of Minnesota ALG lab provided the ALG

Perez‐Tamajon 1996.

Methods
  • Study design: parallel RCT

  • Study duration: not reported

  • Study follow‐up: 20 months

Participants
  • Country: Spain

  • Setting: single centre

  • Inclusion criteria: 1st DD kidney transplant recipients; PRA < 25%

  • Number: treatment group 1 (26); treatment group 2 (24)

  • Mean age ± SD (years): not reported

  • Sex (M/F): not reported

  • Exclusion criteria: not reported

Interventions Treatment group 1
  • ATG: 10 mg/kg/d until Cr < 3 mg/dL


Treatment group 2
  • OKT3: 2.5 mg/d until serum Cr <3mg/dL


Immunosuppression (both groups)
  • CSA, PRED. AZA: dosage not reported

Outcomes
  • Death

  • Graft loss

  • DGF

  • Acute rejection

Notes
  • Abstract‐only publication

  • Reported no difference in demographic data of recipients or donors, in HLA mismatch or cold ischaemia time

  • Acute rejection reported as number of episodes/patient (not total number of patients with acute rejection), therefore not included in review analyses

  • Nephrotoxicity, infections and other medical and surgical complications reported as similar in both groups

  • Funding source: not reported

Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Unlikely to influence outcomes
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Unlikely to influence outcomes
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk All patient outcome data reported
Selective reporting (reporting bias) High risk All expected outcomes reported however unable to use acute rejection data
Other bias Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement and funding source not clear

Pernin 2012.

Methods
  • Study design: parallel RCT

  • Study duration: not reported

  • Study follow‐up: 1 year

Participants
  • Country: Spain

  • Setting: single centre

  • Inclusion criteria: not reported

  • Number: 31 (group assignment not reported)

  • Mean age ± SD (years): not reported

  • Sex (M/F): not reported

  • Exclusion criteria: not reported

Interventions Treatment group 1
  • ATG monitored by CD3: 1 mg/kg/d day 0 and day 1, then only if CD3+ count was above 10 mm3 until day 10


Treatment group 2
  • Fixed dose ATG: 1 mg/kg/d from day 0 to day 4

Outcomes
  • Acute rejection

  • Infection

  • Lymphocyte subsets

Notes
  • Abstract‐only publication

  • No extractable data for our review

  • "The incidence of opportunistic infections or acute rejections were not significantly different between the two groups"

  • Funding source: not reported

Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes High risk Limited reporting of outcomes
Selective reporting (reporting bias) High risk Has not been published as full paper
Other bias High risk Abstract only

Raffaele 1991.

Methods
  • Study design: parallel RCT

  • Study duration: October 1987 to December 1989

  • Study follow‐up: 24 months

Participants
  • Country: France

  • Setting: single centre

  • Inclusion criteria: DD kidney transplant recipients

  • Number: treatment group 1 (70); treatment group 2 (73)

  • Mean age ± SD (years): not reported

  • Sex (M/F): not reported

  • Retransplantation: treatment group 1 (20%); treatment group 2 (16%)

  • Exclusion criteria: not reported

Interventions Treatment group 1
  • OKT3: 5 mg/kg for 10 days


Treatment group 2
  • ATG (Merieux): 25 mg/20 kg/d for 10 days


Immunosuppression (both groups)
  • MP‐PRED: MP 15 mg/kg pre‐op, then PRED 1 mg/kg tapered to 20 mg by 1 month

  • AZA: 2 to 3 mg/kg

  • CSA: 1 mg/kg IV for 2 days, then oral 4 mg/kg/d, adjust as per trough

Outcomes
  • CMV infection

  • CMV disease (symptomatic)

  • Acute rejection

Notes
  • Specifically looking at CMV infection

  • Not specified if given CMV prophylaxis

  • PRA > 80% significantly higher in OKT3 group (14 versus 4)

  • Funding source: not reported

Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Unlikely to be influenced
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Not specified whether acute rejection episodes were biopsy‐proven acute rejection
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk All patient outcome data reported
Selective reporting (reporting bias) High risk Expected outcomes reported given only short‐term follow‐up. However, graft loss and death not reported. (may be none but would expect these outcomes to be reported)
Other bias Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement to assess and funding source not declared

Rostaing 2010.

Methods
  • Study design: parallel RCT

  • Study duration: not reported

  • Study follow‐up: 1 month

Participants
  • Country: France

  • Setting: single centre

  • Inclusion criteria: adult DD kidney transplant recipients; PRA > 30%

  • Number: treatment group 1 (8); treatment group 2 (8)

  • Mean age ± SD (years): not reported

  • Sex (M/F): not reported

  • Exclusion criteria: not reported

Interventions Treatment group 1
  • rATG (Genzyme): 6.2 mg/kg ± 2.9 over 7 days


Treatment group 2
  • hATG (Fresenius) 22.6 mg/kg ± 7.9 over 7 days


Immunosuppression (both groups)
  • MMF: 2.5 g/d

  • TAC: troughs of 8 to 12 ng/mL

  • PRED: 1 mg/kg/d for 7 days, then tapered to 0.25 mg/kg/d by 1 month


Prophylaxis (both groups)
  • PCP prophylaxis

  • CMV prophylaxis

Outcomes
  • Acute rejection

  • DGF

  • Infection

Notes
  • Designed to look at haematologic effects of the 2 different ATG preparations at 1 month

  • Fall in platelet count more pronounced in hATG group at days 2, 3 and 5 post‐op

  • Mild leucopenia in 1 rATG patient only. 

  • Hb levels similar in both groups (roughly 10 g/dL up to day 10)

  • More EPO given in hATG group compared to rATG group

  • Funding source: not reported

Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Unlikely to influence outcomes
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Unlikely to influence outcomes
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk All patient outcome data reported
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk All expected outcomes reported given short follow‐up only
Other bias Unclear risk Funding not declared

Sakhrani 1992.

Methods
  • Study design: parallel RCT

  • Study duration: January 1990 to September 1990

  • Study follow‐up: 1 year

Participants
  • Country: USA

  • Setting: single centre

  • Inclusion criteria: adult DD kidney transplant recipients

  • Number: treatment group 1 (46); treatment group 2 (37)

  • Mean age ± SD (years): treatment group (43 ± 13); treatment group 2 (42 ± 12)

  • Sex (M/F): treatment group (31/15); treatment group 2 (21/26)

  • Exclusion criteria: not reported

Interventions Treatment group 1
  • Minnesota ALG: 10 mg/kg; duration not reported


Treatment group 2
  • Minnesota ALG: 20 mg/kg; duration not reported


Immunosuppression (both groups)
  • PRED: dose and dosage not reported

  • AZA: dose and dosage not reported

  • CSA: started when good graft function (good urine output and Cr decrease to < 50% pre transplant); dose and dosage not reported

Outcomes
  • Graft loss

  • Acute rejection

  • Severe infection

  • Leucopenia

Notes
  • Death not reported

  • Funding source: not reported

Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgment
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgment
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Unlikely to influence outcomes
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Not stated how acute rejection was determined
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Kidneys did not function in 4 patients (2 in each group) and 1 patient from each group moved out of the country
Selective reporting (reporting bias) High risk Death not reported; results reported as percentages and could not be meta‐analysed
Other bias Unclear risk Funding not reported

Samsel 1999.

Methods
  • Study design: parallel RCT

  • Study duration: November 1997 to April 1999

  • Study follow‐up: 5 years

Participants
  • Country: Poland

  • Setting: multicentre (2 centres)

  • Inclusion criteria: 1st DD kidney transplant recipients

  • Number: treatment group (40); control group (39)

  • Mean age ± SD (years): treatment group (43 ± 10); control group (40 ± 12)

  • Sex (M/F): treatment group (23/17); control group (25/14)

  • Exclusion criteria: active bacterial, viral or fungal infections; thrombocytopenia; leukopenia; patients known to be sensitized to rabbit immunoglobulins; patients with chronic liver disease

Interventions Treatment group
  • hATG (Fresenius): 9 mg/kg given pre‐op as single bolus, via CVC, prior to completion of anastomosis


Control group
  • No ATG


Immunosuppression (both groups)
  • MMF: 1g twice daily, converted to AZA 2mg/kg after 4th month

  • CSA: 8 mg/kg

  • MP‐PRED: 500 mg MP pre‐op, then 250 mg post‐op, switch to PRED 0.5 mg/kg/d on 4th day


Prophylaxis (both groups)
  • Antibiotic prophylaxis: piperacillin sodium and tazobactam for 3 days

Outcomes
  • Patient survival

  • Graft survival

  • Acute rejection

  • Graft function

  • Complications

Notes
  • Funding source: not reported

Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Unlikely to influence outcomes
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Not all acute rejection was biopsy‐proven
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk All patient outcome data reported; 1 patient excluded in control group as immunosuppression was withdrawn however was included in the safety analysis
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk All expected outcomes reported
Other bias Unclear risk Funding source unclear; ATG supplied by Fresenius Pharma Support

Sansom 1976.

Methods
  • Study design: parallel RCT

  • Study duration: February 1972 to October 1974

  • Study follow‐up: at least 4 months

Participants
  • Country: UK

  • Setting: single centre

  • Inclusion criteria: adult DD kidney transplant recipients

  • Number: treatment group (43); control group (42)

  • Mean age ± SD (years): treatment group (36.3 ± 11.1); control group (36.0 ± 12)

  • Sex ratio (M:F): treatment group (1.8:1); control group (2.0:1)

  • Exclusion criteria: not reported

Interventions Treatment group
  • ALG: 2 different types used and an intradermal test used to decide which variety to be given (anti‐human thymocyte ALG; anti‐cultured lymphoblast rabbit ALG)

    • 1 g in 500 mL isotonic saline IV over 4 h for 10 days

      • Only used for 1st 11 patients as 1 patient died due to anaphylaxis after 4th dose

    • Route changed to SC and dose decreased to 500 mg for 10 days. 32 subsequent patients received this


Control group
  • No ALG


Immunosuppression (both groups)
  • Hydrocortisone: 200 mg pre‐op

  • AZA: 5 mg/kg IV pre‐op

  • PRED (post‐op): 75 mg for 10 days, tapered to 12.5 to 15 mg by 4 to 6 months

  • AZA (post‐op): maximum daily dose to keep WCC > 3000/mm3

Outcomes
  • Death

  • Graft loss

  • Acute rejection

Notes
  • 100 patients randomised, only 1st transplant recipients were analysed (not stratified) therefore only 85 patients analysed

  • Acute rejection reported as total number of episodes but not clear if some patients had multiple episodes, therefore total number of patients with acute rejection unknown and not used in review analysis

  • Funding source: GD Searle and Queen Elizabeth Hospital Renal Research Fund

Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk 'randomised numbers consecutively...' insufficient to permit judgement
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Unlikely to influence reported outcomes
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Unclear if acute rejection was biopsy‐proven
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes High risk Higher immunological risk patients excluded (2nd transplant patients) after randomisation; no results given for these 15 patients
Selective reporting (reporting bias) High risk As above; acute rejection results could not be included in the meta‐analysis
Other bias Unclear risk Funding source unclear "gift of rabbit ALG and financial assistance" provided by GD Searle; Queen Elizabeth Hospital Renal Research Fund provided some funding

Sharaf El Din 2006.

Methods
  • Study design: parallel RC; possibly 3:1 however not well described

  • Study duration: not reported

  • Study follow‐up: 1 year

Participants
  • Country: Egypt

  • Setting: single centre

  • Inclusion criteria: LD kidney transplant recipients

  • Number: treatment group (63); control group (20)

  • Mean age ± SD (years): not reported

  • Sex (M/F): not reported

  • Exclusion criteria: not reported

Interventions Treatment group
  • Alemtuzumab: 20 mg, 2 doses day 0 and day 1

  • MP: 250 mg prior to each treatment

  • CSA: 4 mg/kg/d from day 1

  • MMF: 500 mg twice daily from day 1


Control group
  • MP: 250 mg in operating theatre at induction and at declamping

  • PRED: with gradual decrease to 10 mg/d by 3 months

  • CSA: 8 mg/kg/d from day 2

  • MMF: 1 g twice daily from day 2

Outcomes
  • Patient survival

  • Graft survival

  • Acute rejection

  • SCr

Notes
  • Abstract‐only publication

  • Not clear if randomised but states that it was

  • Attempted to contact author to clarify methods but no response

Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Unlikely to influence outcomes
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Not clear if acute rejection was biopsy‐proven
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Other bias Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement

Sheashaa 2008.

Methods
  • Study design: parallel RCT

  • Study duration: not reported

  • Study follow‐up: 5 years

Participants
  • Country: Egypt

  • Setting: single centre

  • Inclusion criteria: LD kidney transplant recipients

  • Number: treatment group (40); control group (40)

  • Mean age ± SD (years): treatment group (30.3 ± 13.1); control group (31.7 ± 10.45)

  • Sex (M/F): treatment group (33/7); control group (33/7)

  • Exclusion criteria: not reported

Interventions Treatment group
  • rATG (Fresenius): 9 mg/kg given in operating theatre prior to revascularization


Control group
  • No ATG


Immunosuppression (both groups)
  • Steroids: dose regimen not reported

  • CNI: dose regimen not reported

  • Anti‐proliferative agents: dose regimen not reported

Outcomes
  • Patient survival

  • Graft survival

  • Biopsy‐proven acute rejection

  • Side effects

Notes
  • Funding source: not reported

Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Low risk Sequentially numbered, opaque, sealed envelopes
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Unlikely to influence outcomes
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Unlikely to influence outcomes
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk All patient outcomes reported
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk All expected outcomes reported
Other bias Unclear risk No obvious source but funding source not declared

Shield 1993.

Methods
  • Study design: parallel RCT

  • Study duration: June 1986 to January 1991

  • Study follow‐up: 3 years

Participants
  • Country: USA

  • Setting: single centre

  • Inclusion criteria: DD kidney transplant recipients

  • Number: treatment group (99); control group (31)

  • Mean age ± SD (years): not reported

  • Sex (M/F): not reported

  • Exclusion criteria: possessed anti‐mouse Ab; refused the drug

Interventions Treatment group
  • OKT3: 5 mg IV bolus given in operating theatre after induction and intubation; no further information provided


Control
  • No OKT3


Immunosuppression (both groups)
  • MP: dose not reported

  • AZA: dose not reported

  • No patient received CSA within 36 h of the transplant

Outcomes
  • Death

  • Graft loss

  • DGF

Notes
  • Records of all kidney transplant recipients analysed: 31 patients LD (no OKT3); all DD transplant recipients received OKT3 intra‐op unless they were ‘randomised’ to non‐OKT3 arm (may not be truly randomised)

  • Authors made decision to include with sensitivity analysis

  • DD only used for our comparisons

  • Funding source: not reported

Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) High risk Limited information but no reason for severe imbalance in LD vs DD patients and unequal numbers in intervention and treatment groups. Likely selection bias; possibly post‐hoc report of unpublished RCT
Allocation concealment (selection bias) High risk As above
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Unlikely to influence outcomes
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Unlikely to influence outcomes
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes High risk Percentages given but no actual numbers for survival and no causes of patient or graft loss
Selective reporting (reporting bias) High risk Acute rejection not reported
Other bias Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement and funding not declared

Slakey 1993.

Methods
  • Study design: parallel RCT; stratified for age (> or < 50 years), diabetes

  • Study duration: January 1988 to September 1990

  • Study follow‐up: to 4.5 years

Participants
  • Country: USA

  • Setting: single centre

  • Inclusion criteria: adult 1st DD kidney transplant recipients with immediate graft function

  • Number: treatment group (61); control group (60)

  • Mean age ± SD (years): treatment group (47.4 ± 13.9); control group (47.3 ± 14.2)

  • Sex (M/F): treatment group (36/25); control group (33/27)

  • ethnicity (Caucasian/Black/other): treatment group (42/15/4); control group (43/15/2)

  • Exclusion criteria: not reported

Interventions Treatment group
  • ALG (Minnesota): 5 mg/kg on day 1, 10 mg/kg day 2, 20 mg/kg days 3 to 7

  • CSA: 10 mg/kg, commenced on day 6

  • AZA: 2.5 mg/kg, adjusted as per WCC (aim > 4000 cells/mm3).

  • PRED: 1 mg/kg/d, decrease to 0.5 mg/kg/d by 2 weeks, tapered to 0.15 mg/kg by 6 months 


Control group
  • CSA: 10 mg/kg/d (oral) within 24 h

  • AZA: 5 mg/kg/d, tapered to 2.5 mg/kg/d by day 8

  • PRED: as for treatment group

Outcomes
  • Death

  • Graft loss

  • Acute rejection

  • Graft function

  • Infection

Notes
  • Funding source: not reported

Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Unlikely to influence outcomes
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Unlikely to influence outcomes
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk All patient outcomes reported
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk All expected outcomes reported
Other bias Unclear risk Funding not declared

Smeekens 2013.

Methods
  • Study design: parallel RCT; stratified by PRA and history of previous transplant

  • Study duration: December 2007 to June 2012

  • Study follow‐up: to 6 months

Participants
  • Country: Netherlands

  • Setting: single centre

  • Inclusion criteria: LD or DD kidney transplant recipients; 18 years

  • Number: treatment group (138); control group (142)

  • Mean age ± SD (years): treatment group (50.8 ± 13.2); control group (49.8 ±12.3)

  • Sex (M): treatment group (69.6%); control group (63.4%)

  • LD/DD: treatment group (58.7/41.3); control group (57.0/43.0)

  • Ethnicity (white): treatment group (94.9%); control group (96.5%)

  • Exclusion criteria: HLA identical living donor; haemolytic uraemic syndrome as original kidney disease; focal segmental glomerulosclerosis that had recurred in a previous graft; 3 or more previously failed grafts; a current or historic PRA > 85%; total WCC < 3.0 x 109/L; platelet count < 75 x 109/L; active infection with Hep B, Hep C or HIV; a history of tuberculosis; previous treatment with rituximab

Interventions Treatment group
  • Rituximab: single dose 375 mg/m2 IV (500 mL bag) at the time of transplantation


Control group
  • Placebo: identical 500 mL bag


Pre‐med, immunosuppression and prophylaxis (both groups)
  • PRED: 100 mg at start of operation; 100 mg/d for 3 days; 15‐5 mg/d and tapered to 0.1 mg/kg/d

  • Clemastin: 2 mg at start of operation

  • Standard antibiotic prophylaxis at start of operation

  • TAC: 0.1 mg/kg twice daily, target trough 15 to 20 ng/mL for 2 weeks, then 10 to 15 ng/mL for 4 weeks, thereafter 5 to 10 ng/mL

  • MMF: 1000 mg twice daily for 2 weeks, then 1500 mg/d thereafter (or 2000 mg if weight > 90 kg),

  • Co‐trimoxazole: 480 mg daily for 3 months, then 3 times/week until 12 months

  • Valganciclovir: for 3 months if CMV D+/R‐

Outcomes
  • Biopsy‐proven acute rejection

  • Patient survival

  • Graft survival

  • Graft function (CrCl)

  • CAN

  • Infection

  • Malignancy

  • Cost

Notes
  • Funding source: "Funding for the clinical trial was provided by Hoffmann–La Roche and Astellas Pharma. Rituximab (MabThera, Hoffman‐La Roche) was donated."

Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Low risk Computer generated list of random numbers, prepared by independent investigator
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Low risk Study numbers only available to authorised nurses who signed confidentiality statements. Medication prepared by authorised nurses
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Medication in identical bags for rituximab and placebo
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Unlikely to influence outcomes
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk All patient outcome data reported
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk All expected outcomes reported
Other bias Low risk None apparent. 'Both companies were informed of the results and had no role in study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation or writing of the report.'

Spillner 1998.

Methods
  • Study design: parallel RCT

  • Study duration: not reported

  • Study follow‐up: 1 year

Participants
  • Country: Germany

  • Setting: single centre

  • Inclusion criteria: 1st DD kidney transplant recipients; 18 to 60 years; cold ischaemia time < 48 h

  • Number: not reported

  • Mean age ± SD (years): not reported

  • Sex (M/F): not reported

  • Exclusion criteria: history of malignancy; hyperimmunised patients; positive historical crossmatch

Interventions Treatment group
  • Odulimomab: 30 mg, 2 h pre‐op. 15 mg/d for further 9 days.

  • CSA: started day 9 at 8 mg/kg/d, then adjusted as per trough level


Control group
  • CSA: 3 mg/kg/d pre‐op, then 8 mg/kg/d, as per trough level


Immunosuppression (both groups)
  • AZA: 1.5 to 2 mg/kg/d

  • PRED: 500 mg in operating theatre, then 30 mg/d, reduced by 5 mg every week to maintenance of 10 mg/d

Outcomes
  • Acute rejection

  • Patient survival

  • Graft survival

  • DGF

  • Infections

  • Graft function

Notes
  • Acute rejection episodes recorded as 5 versus 12 episodes. Number of patients with acute rejection in each group not specified (some patients may have had multiple episodes of acute rejection). Unable to meta‐analyse

  • Funding source: not reported

Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Unlikely to influence outcomes
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Unlikely to influence outcomes
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes High risk All patient outcome data reported
Selective reporting (reporting bias) High risk Unable to meta‐analyse acute rejection results
Other bias Unclear risk Funding not reported

Squifflet 1997.

Methods
  • Study design: parallel RCT; stratified by 1st and 2nd graft

  • Study duration: April 1995 to February 1996

  • Study follow‐up: 6 months

Participants
  • Country: Belgium

  • Setting: single centre

  • Inclusion criteria: DD kidney transplant recipients; ≥ 18 years

  • Number: treatment group (20); control group (20)

  • Mean age ± SD (years): treatment group (39.90 ± 11.38); control group (37.40 ± 11.70)

  • Sex (M/F): treatment group (10/10); control group (10/10)

  • 1st/2nd transplant: treatment group (16/4); control group (16/4)

  • Exclusion criteria: not reported

Interventions Treatment group
  • Humanised anti‐CD2 rat MAb: BTI‐322 5 mg/d IV for 10 days. 1st dose given in operating theatre prior to vascular anastomosis

  • MP: 250 mg at unclamping and repeat 6 h later

  • CSA, AZA, PRED as per control


Control group
  • CSA: 3 to 8 mg/kg/d, adjust for trough 200 to 400 ng/mL

  • AZA:' 1 mg/kg/d

  • PRED: 0.5 mg/kg/d tapered to 0.1 mg/kg/d by 9 months 

Outcomes
  • Patient survival

  • Graft survival

  • Biopsy‐proven acute rejection

  • Infection

  • DGF

  • Malignancy

Notes
  • Funding source: supported by a grant from BioTransplant Inc

Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Unlikely to influence outcomes
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Unlikely to influence outcomes
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk All patient outcome data reported
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk All expected outcomes reported
Other bias High risk Supported by the manufacturers of BTI‐322

Steinmuller 1991.

Methods
  • Study design: parallel RCT

  • Study duration: not reported

  • Study follow‐up: 6 months

Participants
  • Country: USA

  • Setting: single centre

  • Inclusion criteria: DD kidney transplant recipients; oliguria in first 24 to 36 hours; increase in SCr in 1st 12 to 36 h post transplant

  • Number: treatment group 1 (26); treatment group 2 (25)

  • Mean age ± SD (years): treatment group 1 (43.2 ± 12.55); treatment group 2 (42.5 ± 10.9)

  • Sex (M/F): treatment group 1 (13/13); treatment group 2 (17/8)

  • Exclusion criteria: not reported

Interventions Treatment group 1
  • ALG (Minnesota): 10 to 20 mg/kg/d IV via CVC, dose adjusted CD2 and CD3 counts (aim to maintain at 20 to 40 cells/mm or below), stopped after 2 or 3 day overlap with CSA


Treatment group 2
  • OKT3: initial dose 5 mg, dose adjust between 5 to 10 mg, depending on CD3 suppression (aim for 10 to 20 cells/mm), stopped after 2 or 3 day overlap with CSA


Immunosuppression (both groups)
  • CSA: started when SCr decreasing and urine output established, adjusted for trough of 150 to 300 ng/mL for month 1, then 100 to 200 ng/mL thereafter

  • AZA: 1 to 1.5 mg/kg, adjusted as per WCC

  • PRED: 30 mg/d, tapered after 1 month

Outcomes
  • Death

  • Graft loss

  • Acute rejection

  • Infection

  • Side effects

Notes
  • Funding source: not reported

Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Unlikely to influence outcomes
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Unlikely to influence outcomes
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Some outcomes reported in an unclear way (e.g. graft losses seems to include some deaths but not all deaths)
Selective reporting (reporting bias) High risk Most expected outcomes reported but some not clear.
Some patients had early acute rejection but were treated by course of antibody therapy (therefore, rates of acute rejection may be lower than expected)
Not clear if all patients were biopsied or only those whose SCr continued to rise post antibody treatment or SCr fell then rose again
Graft function: documented at 6 months but not included in meta‐analysis as no SD or SE given
Other bias Unclear risk Funding not reported

Stevens 2008.

Methods
  • Study design: parallel RCT; stratified into 6 groups: white versus non‐white, DD versus LD; listed for pancreas after kidney versus not listed

  • Study duration: April 2004 to December 2007

  • Study follow‐up: 6 months

Participants
  • Country: USA

  • Setting: single centre

  • Inclusion criteria: 18 to 64 years; LD or DD kidney transplant recipients; 1st or repeat transplant

  • Number (analysed/randomised): treatment group 1 (70/79); treatment group 2 (72/81)

  • Mean age ± SD (years): treatment group 1 (45.5 ± 12.4); treatment group 2 (49.3 ± 10.5)

  • Sex (M/F): treatment group 1 (46/24); treatment group 2 (45/27)

  • White‐Asian/other: treatment group 1 (62/8); treatment group 2 (61/11)

  • LD/DD: treatment group 1 (30/40); treatment group 2 (31/41)

  • Exclusion criteria: > 65 years; PRA > 75%; HLA‐identical recipients; required chronic steroids

Interventions Treatment group 1
  • Single high dose rATG: 6 mg Infused over 24 h in 1 L of normal saline, started in operating theatre, prior to re‐perfusion


Treatment group 2 
  • Split dose rATG: 4 x 1.5 mg doses over 7 days (day 0, 2, 4, 6)

    • 1st dose 1.5 mg/kg over 24 h, started before reperfusion

    • Subsequent doses in 250 mL over 6 to 12 h every 2nd day


Pre‐meds, immunosuppression, prophylaxis (both groups)
  • Pre‐med: MP, paracetamol, antihistamine

    • MP: 3 mg/kg every 6 h for 24 h

  • Immunosuppression

    • TAC: 1 to 3 mg twice daily when Cr < 3g/dL (trough target 4 to 6 ng/mL, 2 to 4 ng/mL after 3/12)

    • Sirolimus: 5 mg 4 times/d when SCr < 3 mg/dL, (trough 8 to 10 ng/mL to 3 months, 4 to 8 ng/mL after 3 months)

      • MMF: used if BMI > 32, 500 to 1000 mg twice/d

  • Prophylaxis

    • Valaciclovir for 3 months

    • Clotrimazole for 3 months

    • Co‐trimoxazole (or dapsone or aerosolized pentamidine if allergy) for PCP for 3 months

Outcomes
  • Kidney function (eGFR)

  • CAN by protocol biopsy at 6 months

  • Biopsy‐proven acute rejection

  • Patient survival

  • Graft survival

  • Safety profile

  • NODAT

Notes
  • Switch in maintenance immunosuppression at 6 months. Either CNI withdrawal and switch to MMF or continued on TAC. 50% of each group. These results not reported, therefore outcomes only to 6/12

  • Funding source: "supported by the Ann Goldstein‐Cheryl Cooper New Frontiers in Transplant Medicine Fund, a Research Support Fund grant from the Nebraska Medical Center and the University of Nebraska Medical Center and an unrestricted research grant from Genzyme, Inc"

Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Low risk ‘Randomly generated treatment group assignments’ after stratification into 6 different groups
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Low risk ‘Sequentially numbered sealed envelopes’. 
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Unlikely to influence outcomes
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk All patient outcome data reported
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Missing outcome data balanced in numbers across intervention groups, with similar reasons for missing data across groups
Selective reporting (reporting bias) High risk Primary outcomes not well reported (graphs only, no figures reported for kidney function)
Other bias Unclear risk Partly funded by Genzyme with unrestricted grant. (but ATG in both arms)

Taylor 1976.

Methods
  • Study design: parallel RCT

  • Study duration: not reported

  • Study follow‐up: 12 months


RCT
Multicentre ‐ 12 centres across Canada
12 month follow up
Participants
  • Country: Canada

  • Setting: multicentre (12)

  • Inclusion criteria: DD kidney transplant recipients

  • Number: treatment group (87); control group (92)

  • Mean age ± SD (years): not reported

  • Sex (M/F): not reported

  • Exclusion criteria: ABO incompatibility; positive direct crossmatch; previous ALG therapy; positive skin test for sensitivity to horse serum protein; previous transplant

Interventions Treatment group
  • Horse ALG: 20 mg/kg IV over 8 h once/d for 10 days, starting post‐op (some via CVC, some via AVF)


Control group
  • No ALG


Immunosuppression (both groups)
  • As per treating physician, could include:

    • AZA

    • PRED/hydrocortisone

    • Actinomycin D

    • Graft radiation

  • 'Dose adjusted according to progress'

Outcomes
  • Death

  • Graft loss

  • Acute rejection

  • Other complications

Notes
  • Funding source: Medical Research Council, Canada

Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Low risk Table of random numbers used
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Low risk sealed envelopes with patient allocations, only opened during operation
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Unlikely to influence outcomes
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement, in particular, not clear how acute rejection episodes were diagnosed and what made them a minor versus a major acute rejection episode
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk All patient outcome data reported
Selective reporting (reporting bias) High risk All expected outcomes reported; graft function reported at 60 days but not able to be used in analyses of this review as no SD or SE given
Other bias Low risk Appears free of other bias; funding by Medical Research Council, Canada

Thibaudin 1998.

Methods
  • Study design: parallel RCT; stratified by PRA into 5 groups

  • Study duration: 1991 to 1995

  • Study follow‐up: median 25 months

Participants
  • Country: France

  • Setting: single centre

  • Inclusion criteria: adult LD or DD sensitised kidney transplant recipients; 1st or 2nd graft

  • Number: treatment group (47); control group (42)

  • Mean age ± SD (years): treatment group (47 ± 12); control group (46 ± 13)

  • Sex (M/F): treatment group (28/19); control group (30/12)

  • LD/DD: treatment group (0/47); control group (/42)

  • 1st/2nd transplant: treatment group (34/13); control group (26/16)

  • Exclusion criteria: 3rd grafts; grafts performed against a positive historical T‐cell crossmatch

Interventions Treatment group
  • rATG (Pasteur‐Merieux): 1.25 mg/kg/d, given once/d for 10 days, dose adjusted by CD2 and CD3 counts, done 3 times/week

  • AZA: only introduced when ATG stopped

  • CSA and PRED: as per control


Control group
  • CSA: started pre‐op at oral equivalent of 14 mg/kg/d, tapered every 2nd day to 8 mg/kg/day by end of week 1, adjusted per trough of 100 to 300 µg/L

  • PRED: 30 mg/d

  • AZA: 2 mg/kg/d

Outcomes
  • Death

  • Graft survival

  • Acute rejection

  • Side effects

  • Graft function

Notes
  • Time frame for some outcomes not entirely clear as not all patients followed to same time point

  • Funding source: not reported

Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Unlikely to influence outcomes
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Unlikely to influence outcomes
Not all acute rejection was biopsy proven (72% in ATG group and 90% in control)
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk All patient outcome data reported
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk All expected outcomes reported
Other bias Unclear risk Funding source not reported

Thomas 1977.

Methods
  • Study design: quasi‐RCT

  • Study duration: January 1974 to May 1976

  • Study follow‐up: 1 to 3 years

Participants
  • Country: USA

  • Setting: single centre

  • Inclusion criteria: DD kidney transplant recipients aged 14 to 55 years

  • Number: treatment group (34); control group (37)

  • Mean age (years): treatment group (38.79); control group (37.65)

  • Sex (F): treatment group (35%); control group (19%)

  • 1st transplant: treatment group (82%); control group (78%)

  • Exclusion criteria: abnormal lower urinary tract

Interventions Treatment group
  • High potency ALG: 1.5 mg/kg/d IM for 5 days


Control group
  • Low potency (group A) ALG: 1.5 mg/kg/d IM for 5 days


Immunosuppression (both groups)
  • AZA: 2 to 3 mg/kg

  • PRED: 1 mg/kg/d reduced to a mean 0 to 0.5 mg/kg/d by 1 month

Outcomes
  • Acute rejection

  • Death

  • Graft loss

Notes
  • Funding source: supported in part BY NIH grants IRO AI12822‐O1 and R01 AI12586‐01

Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) High risk 'randomisation usually on an alternate basis but not necessarily so'.
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Reported as double blind "neither medical nor nursing staff aware of which letter group was high potency (H.P.‐A.L.G.) and which was moderate potency (M.P.‐A.L.G.)" Labelled group A and group B – low risk given hard outcomes
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Unlikely to influence outcomes
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Five patients excluded due to inadvertent major deviations from standard protocol
Selective reporting (reporting bias) High risk Deaths not fully reported. Infection not fully reported
Other bias Low risk None apparent. Funded in part by 2 x NIH grants

Thomas 2007.

Methods
  • Study design: parallel RCT

  • Study duration: January 2005 to May 2006

  • Study follow‐up: 12 months

Participants
  • Country: USA

  • Setting: single centre

  • Inclusion criteria: "high risk" DD kidney transplant recipients (either PRA > 20% or previous failed transplant)

  • Number: treatment group 1 (11); treatment group 2 (8)

  • Mean age ± SEM (years): treatment group 1 (43.5 ± 4.1); treatment group 2 (47.1 ± 4.2)

  • Sex (M/F): treatment group 1 (6/5); treatment group 2 (2/6)

  • Caucasian/African‐American/Hispanic/Asian): treatment group 1 (5/2/4/0); treatment group 2 (1/2/4/1)

  • Exclusion criteria: not reported

Interventions Treatment group 1
  • Alemtuzumab: 30 mg single dose, before reperfusion

  • TAC: from day 1 post‐op, trough target of 10 ng/mL


Treatment group 2
  • ATG: 1.5 mg/kg ATG pre‐op; 1.5 mg/kg/d for 4 days

  • PRED: 250 mg MP with 2nd dose of ATG; Oral PRED day 3, 50 mg twice daily, tapered to 10 mg over 5 days

  • MMF: started pre‐op (dose not specified)

  • TAC: started when Cr < 3.0 g/dL or day 3 post‐op (whichever earlier); trough target 10 ng/mL 

Outcomes
  • Death

  • Graft loss

  • Acute rejection

Notes
  • 2 patients withdrew after randomisation and were excluded

  • Infection reported but not able to be included in review analyses as reported as total numbers only (number of patients with infections not reported). Results as follows:

    • Alemtuzumab: UTI (9), wound (2), infected seroma (1), skin pustules (1)

    • ATG: UTI (4), wound (1), colitis (1), west Nile virus meningitis (1)

  • Funding source: not reported

Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Unlikely to influence outcomes
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Unlikely to influence outcomes
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk All patient outcome data reported
Selective reporting (reporting bias) High risk Unable to analyse infection data
Other bias Unclear risk Funding source not reported

Toledo‐Pereyra 1985.

Methods
  • Study design: parallel RCT

  • Study duration: not reported

  • Study follow‐up: 1 year

Participants
  • Country: USA

  • Setting: single centre

  • Inclusion criteria: 1st DD kidney transplant recipients

  • Number: treatment group 1 (25); treatment group 2 (25)

  • Mean age (years): treatment group 1 (47); treatment group 2 (42)

  • Sex (M/F): treatment group 1 (18/7); treatment group 2 (16/9)

  • Black/white: treatment group 1 (11/14); treatment group 2 (5/20)

  • Exclusion criteria: not reported

Interventions Treatment group 1
  • Horse or goat ALG: 20 mg/kg/d, starting 1 day post‐op, for 14 days; adjust as per WCC and platelets (dose 5 to 20 mg/kg/d)

    • Dose adjusted if platelets fell to 50 to 100 x 103/mm3, or WCC 3000 to 5000/mm3

    • Stopped if platelets < 50,000/mm3 or WCC < 3000/mm3


Treatment group 2
  • hATG: up to 15 mg/kg/d, started 1 day post‐op, continued for 14 days at dose 5 to 15 mg/kg/d

    • Dose adjusted if platelets fell to 50 to 100 x 103/mm3, or WCC 3000 to 5000/mm3

    • Stopped if platelets < 50,000/mm3 or WCC < 3000/mm3


Immunosuppression (both groups)
  • AZA 5mg/kg/d on 1st day post‐op, then 1 to 2.5 mg/kg/d as per WCC

  • PRED: 1 mg/kg/d, reduced to 20 to 25 mg/d by 3rd or 4th week

Outcomes
  • Death

  • Graft loss

  • Acute rejection

  • Side effects

Notes
  • Funding source: not reported

Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Unlikely to influence outcomes
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Unlikely to influence outcomes
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk All patient outcome data reported
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk All expected outcomes reported
Other bias Unclear risk Funding source not reported

TRIMS Study 2010.

Methods
  • Study design: parallel RCT; 2:1 randomisation

  • Study duration: October 2003 to December 2004

  • Study follow‐up: 1 year

Participants
  • Country: USA

  • Setting: multicentre (17)

  • Inclusion criteria: LD kidney transplant recipients > 18 years; PRA < 20%

  • Number: treatment group (103); control group (48)

  • Mean age ± SD (years): treatment group (45.7 ± 13.65); control group (45.8 ± 13.04)

  • Sex (M/F): treatment group (61/42); control group (27/21)

  • Caucasian/African American/Hispanic/Asian or other: treatment group (65/13/19/6/1); control group (31/9/3/5/0)

  • Prior transplant: treatment group (1); control group (0)

  • Exclusion criteria: HLA identical matched living‐donor transplant recipient; > 2 previous kidney transplants; loss of first kidney transplant within one year; current PRA > 20%; history of a positive cross‐match with the donor; donor or recipient serology positive for either HIV, HBV. HCV; chronic corticosteroids use except for inhaled corticosteroids to treat asthma; use of any investigational products during the 90 d prior to screening; requirement for multiple organ transplant; subject without a functioning urinary bladder; known contraindication to administration of rATG; currently abusing drugs or alcohol, or patients at high risk for poor compliance or with significant medical or psychosocial problems or unstable disease states that would warrant exclusion from the study in the opinion of individual investigators

Interventions Treatment group
  • ATG: 5 to 6 mg/kg total dose, given in 4 equal divided doses over 4 days (spread over 7 days maximum if any delayed doses)

  • PRED‐MP: MP 500 mg day 0, then 1 mg/kg PRED tapered to 0.25 mg/kg by day 6, then stopped


Control group
  • PRED‐MP: 500 mg MP, then PRED 1 mg/kg, tapered as per local protocol to minimum of 5 mg/d


Immunosuppression (both groups)
  • TAC: 0.1 mg/kg/d, started within 24 h of operation, trough as per local protocol

  • MMF: 1000 mg day 0, then 1g twice daily till day 4, then as per local protocol


Prophylaxis (both groups)
  • CMV: valganciclovir or ganciclovir if donor CMV +ve for 6 months. If recipient +ve but donor –ve, or both –ve received acyclovir for 3 months

  • PCP: as per local protocol

Outcomes
  • Biopsy‐proven acute rejection (6 and 12 months)

  • Graft loss (6 and 12 months)

  • Death (6 and 12 months)

  • DGF

  • Graft function

  • Adverse events

  • NODAT

Notes
  • Funding source: sponsored by Genzyme

Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Unlikely to influence outcomes
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Unlikely to influence outcomes
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk All patient outcome data reported
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk All expected outcomes reported
Other bias High risk Sponsored by Genzyme (rATG manufacturers)
NB: enrolment stopped early at 151 patients (planned to enrol 200) by study sponsor – due to ‘budget reasons’

Tsai 2012.

Methods
  • Study design: parallel RCT

  • Study duration: not reported

  • Study follow‐up: 6 months

Participants
  • Country: Taiwan

  • Setting: single centre

  • Inclusion criteria: non‐sensitised (PRA < 20%), HLA‐mismatched DD kidney transplant recipients

  • Number: treatment group 1 (15); treatment group 2 (15); control group (16)

  • Mean age (range): 42.5 years (16 to 65)

  • Sex (M/F): 23/23

  • Exclusion criteria: not reported

Interventions Treatment group 1
  • Rituximab: single dose of 375 mg/m2 during surgery

  • TAC: dose/trough level not reported

  • Steroids: dose not reported


Treatment group 2
  • Rituximab: single dose of 375 mg/m2 during surgery

  • Steroids: dose not reported

  • MMF: dose between 1000 and 2000 mg/d to keep WCC between 4000 and 6000/mm3

  • TAC: dose/trough level not reported


Control group
  • No induction

  • Steroids: dose not reported

  • MMF: dose between 1000 and 2000 mg/d to keep WCC between 4000 and 6000/mm3

  • TAC: dose/trough level not reported

Outcomes
  • Acute rejection

  • Infection

  • Graft function

Notes
  • Abstract‐only publication

  • Treatment group 2 and control group compared

  • Funding source: not reported

Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Unlikely to influence outcomes
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Unlikely to influence outcomes
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Selective reporting (reporting bias) High risk Full study not reported
Other bias High risk Abstract only. Funding source unknown

Turcotte 1973.

Methods
  • Study design: parallel RCT, stratified by LD or DD

  • Study duration: March 1964 to November 1972

  • Study follow‐up: 18 months

Participants
  • Country: USA

  • Setting: single centre

  • Inclusion criteria: LD (all intra‐familial) or DD kidney transplant recipients

  • Number: treatment group (36); control group (35)

  • Mean age ± SD (years): not reported

  • Sex (M/F): not reported

  • LD/DD: treatment group (17/19); control group (18/17)

  • Exclusion criteria: not reported

Interventions Treatment group
  • hATG: once/day via IM, starting 3 days pre‐op for LD or immediately pre‐transplant for DD, 3.5 mg/kg/d prior and for 7 days post‐op, 1.8 mg/kg days 8 to 21, 0.9 mg/kg days 22 to 35

  • AZA: 3 mg/kg immediately post‐op adjust as per WCC

  • PRED: 0.6 mg/kg/d for LD and 1.2 mg/kg/d for DD, by week 8 0.5 mg/kg for LD and 0.75 mg/kg for DD


Control group
  • AZA: 3 mg/kg immediately post‐op adjust as per WCC

  • PRED: double dose of treatment group, more rapid taper over 8 weeks, by week 8 0.5 mg/kg for LD and 0.75 mg/kg for DD

Outcomes
  • Patient survival

  • Graft survival

  • Graft function

  • Complications

  • Acute rejection

Notes
  • Acute rejection: reported in study but not included in the review analyses as reported as total number of acute rejection episodes (rather than total number of patients with acute rejection)

  • Infection: reported as total episodes rather than number of patients

  • Adverse reactions to ATG: all had high fevers; urticarial (9), anaphylaxis (‘mild’) (2), serum sickness (1)

  • Stopped early days 32 and 33 (2)

  • Funding source: hATG provided by Upjohn Co; Maud T. Lane Fund and research grant from Public Health Service

Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Low risk Separate sets of random cards for DD and LD recipients
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Low risk Cards in sealed envelopes, not opened until the time of surgery
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Unlikely to influence outcomes
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Unlikely to influence outcomes
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk All patient outcome data reported
Selective reporting (reporting bias) High risk All expected outcomes reported, however unable to use acute rejection or infection data
Other bias Unclear risk Unclear: hATG provided by Upjohn Co (therefore partially funded by them)
Also funded by Maud T. Lane Fund and research grant from Public Health Service

Tyden 2009.

Methods
  • Study design: parallel RCT

  • Study duration: November 2005 to May 2007

  • Study follow‐up: 3 years

Participants
  • Country: Sweden

  • Setting: multicentre (4)

  • Inclusion criteria: ≥18 years, recipient of 1st or 2nd transplant from LD or DD; single organ only

  • Number: treatment group (68); control group (68)

  • Mean age ± SD (years): treatment group (51.3 ± 12.0); control group (47.0 ± 13.4)

  • Sex (M/F): treatment group (46/23); control group (44/24)

  • DD/LD: treatment group (49/19); control group (43/25)

  • 1st/2nd transplant: treatment group (68/0); control group (62/6)

  • Exclusion criteria: HLA‐identical siblings; receiving immunosuppressive therapy within the preceding 28 days; PRA > 50% within 6 months before enrolment; history of malignancy; active infection; pregnant or lactating females; women of child bearing potential not willing to use reliable form of contraception

Interventions Treatment group
  • Rituximab: 375 mg/m2 BSA, within 24 hr, given mixed in 500 mL 5% dextrose


Control group
  • Placebo: 500 mL 5% dextrose


Immunosuppression (both groups)
  • TAC: 0.1 mg/kg twice daily, trough 10 ng/mL 1st month, 5 to 10 ng/mL 2nd month, 5 ng/mL thereafter

  • MMF: 1 g twice daily, adjusted per AUC, target 90 to 180 µmol/L h

  • PRED: 100 mg, reduce by 10 mg/d to 20 mg, continued for 1 month then tapered to 5 mg by 4 months


Prophylaxis (both groups)
  • CMV: either valganciclovir or valaciclovir

  • PCP: co‐trimoxazole for 6 months

Outcomes
  • Acute rejection (6 months)

  • Death (6 months)

  • Graft failure (6 months)

  • Graft function

  • Infection

  • Adverse events

  • Malignancy

Notes
  • All acute rejection was biopsy proven

  • 3 year follow‐up: poor follow‐up of initial patient groups

    • Rituximab: 53/68 (15 declined); of the 53, graft failed (1), deaths (8)

    • Placebo: 48/68 (20 declined): of the 48, graft failed (1), death (0)

  • Funding source: grants from Roche, Sweden and Astellas Pharma 'Had advisory input into study design, collected data via electronic reporting and monitored study conduct'

Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement ("...in randomization blocks of four")
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Low risk Randomisation performed at hospital pharmacy department
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Infusion bags marked ‘Mantra study medication’ with content blinded to both the patient and the investigator
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Unlikely to influence outcomes
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Most expected outcomes reported but no mention of malignancy in the study; poor follow‐up at 3 years
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk All expected outcomes were reported
Other bias High risk Grants from Roche, Sweden and Astellas Pharma
'Had advisory input into study design, collected data via electronic reporting and monitored study conduct'

van den Hoogen 2013.

Methods
  • Study design: parallel RCT; stratified for age (< 50 or ≥ 50) and warm ischaemia time (< 30 min or ≥ 30 min)

  • Study duration: January 2008 to June 2010

  • Study follow‐up: 3months

Participants
  • Country: Netherlands

  • Setting: multicentre (4)

  • Inclusion criteria: adult 1st DD kidney transplant recipients

  • Number: treatment group (28); control group (24)

  • Mean age, range (years): treatment group (54, 21 to 70); control group (56, 24 to 68)

  • Sex (M/F): treatment group (18/10); control group (17/7)

  • Exclusion criteria: previous transplant or proposed transplant with multiple organs; blood group incompatibility; current pregnancy or history of more than 3 pregnancies; lack of consistent data on a PRA; known presence of antibodies against rabbit immunoglobulin or previous treatment with rabbit immunoglobulin; known intolerance to any component of basal immunosuppression; HIV‐positivity; leukocytes < 3.0 × 109/L and/or platelets < 50 × 109/L before transplant; (cured) malignancy (with the exception of basocellular or spinocellular skin cancer); pulmonary oedema or other signs of overhydration

Interventions Treatment group
  • ATG (Fresenius): 9 mg/kg in 500 mL normal saline, single dose intra‐op, given over 4 h

  • MP: 250 mg IV prior to ATG


Control group
  • MP: 250 mg intra‐operatively


Immunosuppression (both groups)
  • TAC: 0.2 mg/kg/d, adjusted to level of 15 to 20 mg/L for 2 weeks, then 10 to 15 mg/L for 4 weeks, thereafter 5 to 10 mg/L

  • PRED: 100 mg IV for 3 days then as per local policies

  • MMF: 2000 mg/d for 2 weeks then 1500 mg/d unless weight >90 kg


Prophylaxis (both groups)
  • PCP: co‐trimoxazole 480 mg/d

  • CMV: valganciclovir if D+/R‐

Outcomes
  • DGF

  • Death

  • Graft loss

  • Acute rejection

  • Adverse events (infection, malignancy, other serious adverse events)

Notes
  • Terminated early due to ‘lower than anticipated inclusion rate’. 180 planned (only 54 recruited)

  • Funding source: "This study was financially supported by Fresenius Biotech GmbH, Gräfelfing, Germany. The company had no input in study design, data collection, data analysis, and writing or editing of the manuscript"

Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Low risk Computer derived algorithm at coordinating centre
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Low risk Printed on paper and put into sealed, numbered envelopes. patients assigned a consecutive number in the order in which they entered the study
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Open‐label
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk DGF was primary outcome and decision regarding need for dialysis post‐op may be quite subjective; unlikely to influence other outcomes
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk All patient outcome data reported
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk All expected outcomes reported
Other bias High risk Terminated early due to poor recruitment
'This study was financially supported by Fresenius Biotech GmbH, Gräfelfing, Germany. The company had no input in study design, data collection, data analysis, and writing or editing of the manuscript'.

Vela 1994.

Methods
  • Study design: parallel RCT

  • Study duration: January 1989 to January 1993

  • Study follow‐up: 12 months

Participants
  • Country: France

  • Setting: single centre

  • Inclusion criteria: adult 1st, 2nd or 3rd kidney transplant recipients; PRA > 50%

  • Number: treatment group 1 (23); treatment group 2 (15)

  • Mean age ± SD (years): treatment group 1 (48 ± 2); treatment group 2 (42 ± 3)

  • Sex (M/F): treatment group 1 (11/12); treatment group 2 (5/10)

  • Exclusion criteria: not reported

Interventions Treatment group 1
  • ALG (Merieux): 3‐4 ‘vials’/d

  • CSA: 10 mg/kg/d, started when SCr < 200 µmol/L

    • ALG stopped when CSA trough reached 150 to 200 ng/mL 


Treatment group 2
  • OKT3: 5 mg/day, stopped on day 10

  • CSA: 10 mg/kg/d, started day 8


Immunosuppression (both groups)
  • AZA: 150 mg/d

  • PRED: 20 mg/d

Outcomes
  • Patient survival

  • Graft survival

  • Acute rejection

  • Viral infections

  • Other side effects

  • Graft function

Notes
  • 3 patients assigned to OKT3 were switched to ALG group due to fluid overload. 

  • All side effects higher in the OKT3 group compared to ALG, except for rash

  • Numbers with cytokine release syndrome not given but 100% in OKT3 group had fever, compared to 13% in ALG group

  • Graft function given as bar graph but no actual figures given therefore not able to be included in meta‐analyses

  • Funding source: not reported

Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Unlikely to influence outcomes
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Unlikely to influence outcomes
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk All patient outcome data reported
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk All expected outcomes reported however unable to use graft function data
Other bias Unclear risk Funding source not reported

Vigeral 1986.

Methods
  • Study design: parallel RCT

  • Study duration: not reported

  • Study follow‐up: 3 months

Participants
  • Country: France

  • Setting: single centre

  • Inclusion criteria: 1st DD kidney transplant recipients

  • Number: treatment group (6); control group (7)

  • Mean age ± SD (years): treatment group (34.3 ± 9.2); control group (35.7 ± 11.2)

  • Sex (M/F): treatment group (3/3); control group (4/3)

  • Exclusion criteria: not reported

Interventions Treatment group
  • OKT3: 5 mg/d, IV for 14 days starting 1 day pre‐transplant (pre‐treatment skin test prior) then stopped

  • AZA: 3 mg/kg/d from day 14


Control group
  • AZA: 3 mg/kg/d, given from 1 day pre‐op

  • PRED: 5 mg/kg/d for 5 days, then tapered to 0.25 mg/kg/d over 11 weeks 

Outcomes
  • Death

  • Graft loss

  • Acute Rejection

  • Bacterial infection

  • CMV disease

  • Tolerance of OKT3

Notes
  • If episode of acute rejection, OKT3 was stopped and patient was switched to PRED and AZA

  • Very early study possibly 1st using OKT3 as prophylaxis

  • Pre CNI maintenance

  • All patients in OKT3 group had side effects with fever, chills, anxiety and diarrhoea for 1st infusion and then not after (? vs none in control group although not actually reported) 

  • All developed antibodies to OKT3

  • Not effective as single agent (worse outcomes compared to controls)

  • Funding source: not reported, however 1 author an employee of Ortho Pharmaceuticals

Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Unlikely to influence outcomes
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Most cases of acute rejection were biopsy‐proven acute rejection but not all. Clinical decision for acute rejection without biopsy could be prone to bias
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk All patient outcome data reported
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk All expected outcomes reported given short term follow‐up only
Other bias High risk Funding source not declared; one of the authors is from Ortho Pharmaceutical Corporation (OKT3 manufacturer)

Wechter 1979.

Methods
  • Study design: parallel RCT

  • Study duration: November 1971 to June 1972

  • Study follow‐up: 2 years

Participants
  • Country: USA

  • Setting: multicentre (3)

  • Inclusion criteria: DD kidney transplant recipients

  • Number: treatment group (20); control group (20)

  • Mean age ± SD (years): not reported

  • Sex (M/F): not reported

  • Exclusion criteria: not reported

Interventions Treatment group
  • ATG: 7 mg/kg IV once/d for 4 days, 3.5 mg/kg once/d for 26 days, 7 mg/kg twice weekly for 8 weeks, then 7 mg/kg once weekly for 4 weeks; given in 250 mL saline over at least 3 hours

  • AZA: dosage not reported

  • PRED‐MP: dosage not reported


Control:
  • AZA: dosage not reported

  • PRED‐MP: dosage not reported

Outcomes
  • Death

  • Graft loss

  • Acute rejection (within 28 days)

  • NODAT

Notes
  • Other side effects only reported for ATG

  • Funding source: not reported, contact author employee of Upjohn company (manufacturer of ATG)

Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Unlikely to influence outcomes
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes High risk Acute rejection episodes mainly diagnosed clinically; lack of blinding may have influenced reporting of adverse outcomes.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Side effects not well reported for control group
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk All expected outcomes reported
Other bias High risk Contact author an employee of Upjohn company

Yussim 2000.

Methods
  • Study design: parallel RCT

  • Study duration: not reported

  • Study follow‐up: 2 years

Participants
  • Country: Israel

  • Setting: single centre

  • Inclusion criteria: low and high risk 1st or retransplant kidney transplant recipients

  • Number: treatment group (19); control group (19)

  • Mean age ± SD (years): not reported

  • Sex (M/F): not reported

  • Exclusion criteria: not reported

Interventions Treatment group
  • rATG (Fresenius): single dose of 9 mg/kg given as IV infusion in 500 mL saline prior to revascularistion

  • MP: 500 mg


Control group
  • No ATG


Immunosuppression (both groups)
  • PRED: as per protocol, started post‐op; dosage not reported

  • AZA: as per protocol, started post‐op; dosage not reported

  • CSA: as per protocol, started post‐op; dosage not reported

Outcomes
  • Death

  • Graft loss

  • Acute rejection

  • DGF

  • Infection

Notes
  • Graft function reported but timing not specified and no SD or SE given, cannot be meta‐analysis

  • Funding source: not reported

Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Unlikely to influence outcomes
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Unlikely to influence outcomes
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk All patient outcome data reported
Selective reporting (reporting bias) High risk All expected outcomes reported however SD/SE not reported for graft function
Other bias Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement

ALG ‐ antilymphocyte globulin; ANC ‐ absolute neutrophil count; ATG ‐ antithymocyte globulin; ATGAM ‐ horse ATG; ATN ‐ acute tubular necrosis; AZA ‐ azathioprine; BKV ‐ BK virus; CAN ‐ chronic allograft nephropathy; CMV ‐ cytomegalovirus; CNI ‐ calcineurin inhibitor; CSA ‐ cyclosporin A; DD ‐ deceased donor; DGF ‐ delayed graft function; DEX ‐ dexamethasone; EBV ‐ Epstein–Barr virus; eGFR ‐ estimated glomerular filtration rate; ESKD ‐ end‐stage kidney disease; GI ‐ gastrointestinal; hATG ‐ horse ATG; Hep ‐ hepatitis; HIV ‐ human immunodeficiency virus; HLA ‐ human leukocyte antigen; IL‐2RA ‐ interleukin 2 receptor antagonist; IV ‐ intravenous; LD ‐ living donor; mALG ‐ Minnesota ALG; M/F ‐ male/female; MMF ‐ mycophenolate mofetil; MP ‐ methylprednisolone; NODAT ‐ new‐onset diabetes after transplantation; post‐op ‐ post‐operative; PRA ‐ panel reactive antibodies; PRED ‐ prednisone; PTLD ‐ post‐transplant lymphoproliferative disease; rATG ‐ rabbit ATG; RBC ‐ red blood cell; RCT‐ randomised controlled trial; SCr ‐ serum creatinine; SD ‐ standard deviation; SE ‐ standard error; SEM ‐ standard error of the mean; WCC ‐ white cell count

Characteristics of excluded studies [ordered by study ID]

Study Reason for exclusion
Alloway 1993 Study includes kidney‐pancreas recipients, results not reported separately for kidney only recipients
Kirsch 2006 No outcomes relevant to this review (critical circulating DC subsets, i.e. myeloid (DC1) versus lymphoid (DC2) DC)
Kumar 2002b "Due to financial constraints randomization was based on afford­ability to bear the cost of ATG. Those who could afford the cost were included in the study group and those who couldn't became the control"
NCT00000936 Study terminated; no data available
NCT01312064 Study terminated; no data available

ATG ‐ antilymphocyte globulin

Characteristics of studies awaiting assessment [ordered by study ID]

NCT00089947.

Methods Randomised, open‐label, parallel assignment (phase 2)
Participants 150 participants, ≥18 years, LD kidney transplant recipients
Interventions rATG with rapid discontinuation of steroids versus steroids per hospital standards for at least 1st 90 days after transplant
Outcomes Primary: kidney transplant rejection, organ loss and death at 6 months
Secondary: kidney function after transplantation and overall safety of rATG
Notes This study has been completed but no study results have been posted on Clinicaltrials.gov

NCT00861536.

Methods Randomised, open‐label, parallel assignment (phase 4)
Participants 40 participants, ≥18 years, recipients of kidney transplants of high immunological risk
Interventions ATG (Fresenius) versus thymoglobulin
Outcomes Primary: adverse events
Secondary: rejection, graft function, patient survival, graft survival
Notes This study has been completed but no study results have been posted on Clinicaltrials.gov

NCT01046955.

Methods Randomised, open‐label, parallel assignment (phase 4)
Participants 38 participants, age > 14 years, 1st LD kidney transplant recipients
Interventions ATG versus alemtuzumab versus daclizumab
Outcomes Primary: effectiveness and toxicity at 3 years, patient and graft survival at 1 and 3 years
Secondary: incidence of adverse reactions at 1 and 3 years
Notes This study has been completed but no study results have been posted on Clinicaltrials.gov

NCT01354301.

Methods Randomised, open‐label, parallel assignment (Phase 4)
Participants 300 participants, ≥ 18 years, low risk kidney transplant recipients
Interventions Single dose ATG and everolimus versus basiliximab and everolimus versus basiliximab and MMF
Outcomes Primary: incidence of CMV infection or disease at 1 year
Secondary: incidence of treatment failure at 1 year (composite of biopsy‐confirmed acute rejection, graft loss, death, loss to follow‐up)
Notes This study has been completed but no study results have been posted on Clinicaltrials.gov

Stevens 2016.

Methods Double‐blind, double‐dummy RCT
Participants 18 to 65 years DD or LD kidney transplant recipients
Interventions Single dose rATG versus divided dose rATG
Outcomes Primary: composite endpoint of fever, hypotension, hypoxia, cardiac events, DGF
Secondary: patient survival; graft survival acute rejection; incomplete ATG infusion; eGFR
Notes Results yet to be incorporated

CMV ‐ cytomegalovirus; DGF ‐ delayed graft function; LD ‐ living donor; MMF ‐ mycophenolate mofetil; rATG ‐ rabbit antilymphocyte globulin

Characteristics of ongoing studies [ordered by study ID]

NCT00733733.

Trial name or title Anti‐T‐lymphocyte globulin (ATG) in renal transplantation of kidneys with a non‐heart‐beating (NHB) donor
Methods Randomised, open‐label, parallel assignment (Phase 3)
Participants 180 participants, recipients of DD kidney transplants
Interventions rATG versus no intervention
Outcomes Primary: incidence of initial DGF (defined as need for dialysis) within 3 months
Secondary: duration of initial DGF, incidence of primary never‐functioning grafts, incidence of biopsy‐proven acute rejection within 3 months, kidney function (MDRD) at 1,2 and 3 months, proteinuria at 1, 2 and 3 months, % of patients with arterial hypertension at 3 months, % of patients with antihypertensive drugs at 3 months, % of hyperlipidaemic patients at 3 months, % of post‐transplant DM at 3 months, incidence of CMV infection at 3 months, incidence of tumours/PTLD at 3 months, patient and graft survival at 3 months, incidence of other infections at 3 months, microalbuminuria at 1, 2 and 3 months
Starting date January 2008
Contact information Radboud University (Prof. Dr Andries Hoitsma, UMC St Radboud Hospital)
Notes Estimated study completion date was June 2010; recruitment status unknown; study details last verified in August 2008

NCT01154387.

Trial name or title Evaluating safety and efficacy of TOL101 induction versus anti‐thymocyte globulin to prevent kidney transplant rejection
Methods Randomised, open‐label, parallel assignment (Phase 1 and Phase 2)
Participants 85 participants, age 18‐60, first kidney transplant recipients
Interventions ATG versus TOL101 dose A versus TOL101 dose B
Outcomes Primary: safety and tolerability of ascending doses of TOL101 and effectiveness of TOL101 to target and down regulate T cells at 6 months
Secondary: effects of ascending doses of TOL101 on CD3+ T lymphocyte numbers and other immune cell subsets at 14 days and 6 months, pharmacokinetic profile of TOL101 and exposure‐response relationship over time at 14 days, biopsy‐proven acute organ rejection at 6 months, graft survival at 6 months, patient survival at 6 months, kidney function by measured GFR at 6 months and urine protein to creatinine ration at 3 and 6 months, DGF at 7 days, immunogenicity of TOL101 by measurement of anti‐TOL101 antibodies at 14 and 28 days, presence of DSA at 3 months and 6 months
Starting date July 2010
Contact information Tolera Therapeutics Inc (Stuart Flechner MD, The Cleveland Clinic)
Notes Estimated study completion date was June 2013; recruitment status was active; not recruiting; study details last verified in June 2013

ReMIND Study 2013.

Trial name or title RituxiMab INDuction in renal transplantation (ReMIND)
Methods Randomised, open‐label, parallel assignment (phase 4)
Participants 612 participants, ≥18 years, recipients of LD kidney transplants
Interventions Rituximab and 1 week prednisolone versus continued prednisolone
Outcomes Primary: eGFR at 1 year
Secondary: biopsy proven acute rejection at 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 years, allograft survival at 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 years, patient survival at 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 years, infection rate at 1 year, changes in B and T cell repertoire
Starting date November 2010
Contact information Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust (Nizam Mamode, MD, FRCS(Gen)
Notes Estimated study completion date is October 2023; active, recruiting participants; study details last verified August 2016

ATG ‐ antilymphocyte globulin; CMV ‐ cytomegalovirus; DD ‐ deceased donor; DGF ‐ delayed graft function; DM‐ diabetes mellitus; GFR ‐ glomerular filtration rate; LD ‐ living donor: MDRD ‐ Modification of Diet in Renal Disease; PTLD ‐ post‐transplant lymphoproliferative disease; rATG ‐ rabbit ATG

Contributions of authors

  • Study selection: PH, NC, NB, SP

  • Screening of articles: PH, NC, NB, SP

  • Disagreement resolution: PH, NC, NB, SP

  • Data extraction: PH, NC, NB, SP

  • Data entry: PH

  • Carry out the analysis: PH, NC, NB, SP

  • Interpret the analysis: PH, NC, NB, SP

  • Draft the final review: AW, PH, NC, NB, SP

  • Update the review: AW, PH, NC, NB, SP

Declarations of interest

  • AW: Nothing to declare

  • NC: Nothing to declare

  • PH: Nothing to declare

  • NB: NB is a co‐investigator of the ongoing randomised, controlled clinical trial, ReMIND (RituxiMab INDuction in renal transplantation, NCT01095172).

  • SP: Nothing to declare

New

References

References to studies included in this review

Abouna 1995 {published data only}

  1. Abouna GM, Kumar MS, al‐Abdullah IH, Loose J, Sullivan DK, Phillips K, et al. Induction immunosuppression with antithymocyte globulin in renal transplantation using a variable dose according to the absolute number of CD3+ T cells. Transplantation Proceedings 1995;27(5):2676‐8. [MEDLINE: ] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Abouna GM, al‐Abdullah IH, Kelly‐Sullivan D, Kumar MS, Loose J, Phillips K, et al. Randomized clinical trial of antithymocyte globulin induction in renal transplantation comparing a fixed daily dose with dose adjustment according to T cell monitoring. Transplantation 1995;59(11):1564‐8. [MEDLINE: ] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Abramowicz 1992 {published data only}

  1. Abramowicz D, Goldman M, Pauw L, Vanherweghem JL, Kinnaert P, Vereerstraeten P. The long‐term effects of prophylactic OKT3 monoclonal antibody in cadaver kidney transplantation‐‐a single‐center, prospective, randomized study. Transplantation 1992;54(3):433‐7. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Abramowicz D, Norman DJ, Goldman M, Pauw L, Kinnaert P, Kahana L, et al. OKT3 prophylaxis improves long‐term renal graft survival in high‐risk patients as compared to cyclosporine: combined results from the prospective, randomized Belgian and US studies. Transplantation Proceedings 1995;27(1):852‐3. [MEDLINE: ] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Abramowicz D, Norman DJ, Vereerstraeten P, Goldman M, Pauw L, Vanherweghem JL, et al. OKT3 prophylaxis in renal grafts with prolonged cold ischemia times: association with improvement in long‐term survival. Kidney International 1996;49(3):768‐72. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Goldman M, Abramowicz D, Pauw L, Marecaux G, Vanderwinden JM, Kinnaert P, et al. Beneficial effects of prophylactic OKT3 in cadaver kidney transplantation: comparison with cyclosporin A in a single‐center prospective randomized study. Transplantation Proceedings 1991;23(1 Pt 2):1046‐7. [MEDLINE: ] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Abramowicz 1994 {published data only}

  1. Abramowicz D, Goldman M, Mat O, Estermans G, Crusiaux A, Vanherweghem JL, et al. OKT3 serum levels as a guide for prophylactic therapy: a pilot study in kidney transplant recipients. Transplant International 1994;7(4):258‐63. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Ackermann 1988 {published data only}

  1. Ackermann JR, Lefor WM, Kahana L, Weinstein S, Shires DL. Prophylactic use of OKT3 in renal transplantation: Part of a prospective randomized multicenter trial. Transplantation Proceedings 1988;20(1 Suppl 1):242‐4. [EMBASE: 1988111881] [Google Scholar]
  2. Kahana L, Ackermann J, Lefor W, Weinstein S, Wright C, DeQuesada A, et al. Uses of orthoclone OKT3 for prophylaxis of rejection and induction in initial nonfunction in kidney transplantation. Transplantation Proceedings 1990;22(4):1755‐8. [MEDLINE: ] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Kahana L, Narvarte J, Ackermann J, Lefor W, Weinstein S, Wright C, et al. OKT3 prophylaxis versus conventional drug therapy: single‐center perspective, part of a multicenter trial. American Journal of Kidney Diseases 1989;14(5 Suppl 2):5‐9. [MEDLINE: ] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Ata 2013 {published data only}

  1. Ata P, Kara M, Ozdemir E, Canbakan M, Gokce AM, Bayraktar FA, et al. Monitoring of CD3(+) T‐cell count in patients receiving antithymocyte globulin induction after cadaveric renal transplantation. Transplantation Proceedings 2013;45(3):929‐31. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Banhegyi 1991 {published data only}

  1. Banhegyi C, Rockenschaub S, Muhlbacher F, Kovarik J, Balcke P, Gotzinger P, et al. Preliminary results of a prospective randomized clinical trial comparing cyclosporine A to antithymocyte globulin immunosuppressive induction therapy in kidney transplantation. Transplantation Proceedings 1991;23(4):2207‐8. [MEDLINE: ] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Belitsky 1991 {published data only}

  1. Belitsky P, MacDonald AS, Cohen AD, Crocker J, Hirsch D, Jindal K, et al. Comparison of antilymphocyte globulin and continuous i.v. cyclosporine A as induction immunosuppression for cadaver kidney transplants: a prospective randomized study. Transplantation Proceedings 1991;23(1 Pt 2):999‐1000. [MEDLINE: ] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Gulanikar AC, MacDonald AS, Sungurtekin U, Belitsky P. The incidence and impact of early rejection episodes on graft outcome in recipients of first cadaver kidney transplants. Transplantation 1992;53(2):323‐8. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Gulanikar AC, Sungurtekin U, MacDonald AS, Belitsky P, Bitter‐Suermann H, Cohen A, et al. Sequential discontinuation of azathioprine and prednisone in renal transplantation. Transplantation Proceedings 1991;23(4):2226‐7. [MEDLINE: ] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Bell 1983 {published data only}

  1. Bell PR, Blamey RW, Briggs JD, Castro JE, Hamilton DN, Knapp MS, et al. Medical research council trial of antilymphocyte globulin in renal transplantation. A multicenter randomized double‐blind placebo controlled clinical investigation. Transplantation 1983;35(6):539‐45. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Benfield 1999 {published data only}

  1. Benfield MR, Herrin J, Feld L, Rose S, Stablein D, Tejani A. Safety of kidney biopsy in pediatric transplantation: a report of the Controlled Clinical Trials in Pediatric Transplantation Trial of Induction Therapy Study Group. Transplantation 1999;67(4):544‐7. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Benfield MR, Symons JM, Bynon S, Eckhoff D, Herrin J, Harmon W, et al. Mycophenolate mofetil in pediatric renal transplantation. Pediatric Transplantation 1999;3(1):33‐7. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Benfield MR, Tejani A, Harmon WE, McDonald R, Stablein DM, McIntosh M, et al. A randomized multicenter trial of OKT3 mAbs induction compared with intravenous cyclosporine in pediatric renal transplantation. Pediatric Transplantation 2005;9(3):282‐92. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Tejani A. A randomized prospective multicenter trial of T‐cell antibody induction therapy in pediatric renal transplantation [abstract]. XVIII International Congress of the Transplantation Society; 2000 Aug 27‐Sept 1; Rome, Italy. 2000.
  5. Tejani A, Harmon W, Benfield M, Elshihabi I, McDonald R, Stablein D, et al. A randomized prospective multicenter trial of t‐cell antibody induction therapy in pediatric renal transplantation [abstract]. Transplantation 2000;69(8 Suppl):S111. [CENTRAL: CN‐00402826] [Google Scholar]
  6. Tejani A, Harmon W, Benfield M, Rose S, Stablein D, Strom T, et al. A randomized prospective multicenter trial of t‐cell antibody induction therapy in pediatric renal transplantation [abstract]. Journal of the American Society of Nephrology 2000;11(Sept):709A. [Google Scholar]

Bock 1995 {published data only}

  1. Bock HA, Gallati H, Zurcher RM, Bachofen M, Mihatsch MJ, Landmann J, et al. A randomized prospective trial of prophylactic immunosuppression with ATG‐Fresenius versus OKT3 after renal transplantation. Transplantation 1995;59(6):830‐40. [MEDLINE: ] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Bock HA, Zurcher R, Mihatsch M, Landmann J, Thiel G. A randomized prospective trial of prophylactic immunosuppression with OKT3 vs. ATG‐Fresenius (ATG‐F) after renal transplantation [abstract]. 12th International Congress of Nephrology; 1993 June 13‐18; Jerusalem, Israel. 1993:165. [CENTRAL: CN‐00550381]
  3. Bock HA, Zurcher R, Mihatsch M, Landmann J, Thiel G. A randomized prospective trial of prophylactic therapy with OKT3 vs ATG‐Fresenius (ATG‐F) after renal transplantation [abstract]. Journal of the American Society of Nephrology 1992;3(3):852. [CENTRAL: CN‐00460418] [Google Scholar]

Bock 1999 {published data only}

  1. Bock HA, Tsinalis D, Nickeleit V, Mihatsch M, Thiel G. Randomized prospective study of polyclonal antilymphocyte globulin induction after renal transplantation: ATGAM vs ATG‐Fresenius [abstract no: A3646]. Journal of the American Society of Nephrology 1999;10(Program & Abstracts):720A. [CENTRAL: CN‐00583882] [Google Scholar]

Brennan 1999 {published data only}

  1. Brennan DC, Flavin K, Burgess S, Dolan S, Kano JM, Mahon M, et al. A randomized, double‐blinded comparison of thymoglobulin vs ATGAM for induction in adult renal transplant recipients [abstract no: 710]. Transplantation 1998;65(12):S180. [CENTRAL: CN‐00602088] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Brennan DC, Flavin K, Lowell JA, Howard TK, Shenoy S, Burgess S, et al. A randomized, double‐blinded comparison of Thymoglobulin versus Atgam for induction immunosuppressive therapy in adult renal transplant recipients. [erratum appears in Transplantation 1999 May 27;67(10):1386.]. Transplantation 1999;67(7):1011‐8. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Brennan DC, Flavin K, Lowell JA, Howard TK, Shenoy S, Burgess S, et al. Leukocyte response to thymoglobulin or ATGAM for induction immunosuppression in a randomized, double‐blind clinical trial in renal transplant recipients. Transplantation Proceedings 1999;31(3B Suppl):16S‐8S. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Hardinger KL, Rhee S, Buchanan P, Koch M, Miller B, Enkvetchakul D, et al. A prospective, randomized, double‐blinded comparison of thymoglobulin versus ATGAM for induction immunosuppressive therapy: 10‐year results. Transplantation 2008;86(7):947‐52. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Hardinger KL, Schnitzler MA, Miller B, Lowell J, Shenoy S, Brennan DC. Long‐term comparison of thymoglobulin versus ATGAM for induction in adult renal transplantation: evidence of improved allograft survival at 5 years [abstract]. American Journal of Transplantation 2003;3(Suppl 5):556. [CENTRAL: CN‐00445642] [Google Scholar]
  6. Hardinger KL, Schnitzler MA, Miller B, Lowell JA, Shenoy S, Koch MJ, et al. Five‐year follow up of thymoglobulin versus ATGAM induction in adult renal transplantation. Transplantation 2004;78(1):136‐41. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Broyer 1993 {published data only}

  1. Broyer M, Gagnadoux MF, Guest G, Arsan A, Beurton D, Revillon Y, et al. Prophylactic OKT3 monoclonal antibody versus antilymphocyte globulins: a prospective, randomized study in 148 first cadaver kidney grafts. Transplantation Proceedings 1993;25(1 Pt 1):570‐1. [MEDLINE: ] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Buchler 2013 {published data only}

  1. Buchler M, Longuet H, Lemoine R, Herr F, Gatault P, Thibault G, et al. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies of two different rabbit antithymocyte globulin dosing regimens: results of a randomized trial. Transplant Immunology 2013;28(2‐3):120‐6. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Longuet H, Buchler M, Lemoine R, Herr F, Gatault P, Thibault G, et al. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies of two different rabbit antithymocyte antiglobulin dosing regimens [abstract no: O069]. Transplant International 2013;26(Suppl 2):44‐5. [EMBASE: 71359107] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

CAMPASIA Study 2005 {published data only}

  1. Munoz AS, Cabanayan‐Casasola CB, Danguilan RA, Padua FB, Ona ET. Campath‐1H (alemtuzumab) as an induction agent for the prevention of graft rejection and preservation of renal function in kidney transplant patients: Philippine 3‐year follow‐up. Transplantation Proceedings 2008;40(7):2230‐3. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Vathsala A, CAMPASIA Study Group. Safety and efficacy of campath‐1h (mabcampath®) with low dose cyclosprorine monotherapy in patients receiving kidney transplants ‐ 6 month analysis of the pilot randomised controlled [abstract]. Transplantation 2004;78(2 Suppl):56. [CENTRAL: CN‐00509538] [Google Scholar]
  3. Vathsala A, Campasia Study Group. One year results of a pilot randomised controlled trial of the effectiveness of alemtuzumab as an induction agent for prevention of graft rejection and preservation of renal function in patients receiving kidney transplants [abstract no: T‐PO50029]. Nephrology 2005;10(Suppl):A215. [CENTRAL: CN‐00583367] [Google Scholar]
  4. Vathsala A, Ona ET, Tan S, Suresh S, Chan Y, Lou H, et al. Campasia: a pilot randomised controlled trial of the effectiveness of campath‐1h (mabcampath®) as an induction agent for prevention of graft rejection and preservation of renal function in patients receiving kidney transplants [abstract]. American Journal of Transplantation 2004;4(Suppl 8):406. [CENTRAL: CN‐00509539] [Google Scholar]
  5. Vathsala A, Ona ET, Tan SY, Suresh S, Lou HX, Cabanayan Casasola CB, et al. Randomized trial of Alemtuzumab for prevention of graft rejection and preservation of renal function after kidney transplantation. Transplantation 2005;80(6):765‐74. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Vathsala A, Ona ET, Tan SY, Suresh S, Lou HX, Cabanayan‐Casasola CB, et al. Induction therapy with alemtuzumab together with low dose cyclosporine monotherapy permits steroid‐free immunosuppression, mitigates drug‐related, non‐immune toxicities and improves quality of life [abstract no: TH‐PO550]. Journal of the American Society of Nephrology 2006;17(Abstracts):224A. [CENTRAL: CN‐00644285] [Google Scholar]
  7. Vathsala A, Ona ET, Tan SY, Suresh S, Lou HX, Cabanayan‐Casasola CB, et al. Lymphocyte recovery after depletion by alemtuzumab in renal transplant recipients: impact on outcome [abstract no: 1015]. American Journal of Transplantation 2005;5(Suppl 11):415. [CENTRAL: CN‐00644284] [Google Scholar]

Cantarovich 2008 {published data only}

  1. Cantarovich M, Durrbach A, Hiesse C, Benoit G, Charpentier B. Short and long‐term impact of anti‐thymocyte globulin induction on clinical outcomes in renal transplant patients: 15‐year results of a prospective and randomized trial [abstract no: 1034]. American Journal of Transplantation 2002;2(Suppl 3):398. [CENTRAL: CN‐00415382] [Google Scholar]
  2. Cantarovich M, Durrbach A, Hiesse C, Ladouceur M, Benoit G, Charpentier B. 20‐year follow‐up results of a randomized controlled trial comparing antilymphocyte globulin induction to no induction in renal transplant patients. Transplantation 2008;86(12):1732‐7. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Cantarovich M, Durrbach A, Ladouceur M, Hiesse C, Benoit G, Charpentier B. 20 year follow‐up results of a randomized controlled trial comparing anti‐lymphocyte globulin‐induction to no induction in renal transplant patients [abstract no: 535]. American Journal of Transplantation 2008;8(Suppl 2):321. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Cantarovich M, Durrbach A, Ladouceur M, Hiesse C, Benoit G, Charpentier B. 20 year follow‐up results of a randomized controlled trial comparing anti‐lymphocyte globulin‐induction to no induction in renal transplant patients [abstract no: 879]. Transplantation 2008;86(2S):307. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Durrbach A, Cantarovich M, Hiesse C, Benoir G, Charpentier B. Short and long‐term impact of anti‐lymphocyte globulin induction on clinical outcomes in renal transplant patients: 15‐year results of a prospective and randomized trial [abstract no: 2341]. XIXth International Congress of the Transplantation Society; 2002 Aug 25‐30; Miami, FL. 2002. [CENTRAL: CN‐00420825]

Charpentier 2002 {published data only}

  1. Charpentier B, European Tacrolimus vs Microemulsified Cyclosporin Study Group. A three arm study comparing immediate tacrolimus therapy with ATG induction therapy followed by either tacrolimus or cyclosporine in adult renal transplant recipients. Transplantation Proceedings 2002;34(5):1625‐6. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Charpentier B, Rostaing L, Berthoux F, Lang P, Civati G, Touraine JL, et al. A three‐arm study comparing immediate tacrolimus therapy with antithymocyte globulin induction therapy followed by tacrolimus or cyclosporine A in adult renal transplant recipients. Transplantation 2003;75(6):844‐51. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Rostaing L, Tacrolimus versus Microemulsified Cyclosporin Study Group. Comparison of ATG induction followed by tacrolimus therapy with ATG induction followed by cyclosporine therapy, and immediate tacrolimus‐based triple therapy [abstract]. Journal of the American Society of Nephrology 2001;12(Program & Abstracts):916A. [CENTRAL: CN‐00433645] [Google Scholar]

Chatterjee 1976 {published data only}

  1. Chatterjee SN. Antithymocyte globulin in renal transplant recipients. Report of a prospective randomized controlled trial. Archives of Surgery 1976;111(6):680‐3. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Ciancio 2005 {published data only}

  1. Baruqui JA, Ciancio G, Gaynor J, Guerra G, Sageshima J, Chen L, et al. Randomized trial of three induction antibodies in kidney transplantation: long‐term results [abstract no: P‐37]. American Journal of Transplantation 2014;14(Suppl 3):80. [EMBASE: 71388259] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Carreno MR, Ciancio G, Burke GW, Rosen A, Ricordi C, Tzakis A, et al. Cellular phenotypes affected by induction therapy with campath‐1h vs thymoglobulin vs zenapax in kidney allograft recipients [abstract]. American Journal of Transplantation 2004;4(Suppl 8):405. [CENTRAL: CN‐00509121] [Google Scholar]
  3. Ciancio G, Burke GW, Gaynor JJ, Carreno MR, Cirocco RE, Mathew JM, et al. A randomized trial of three renal transplant induction antibodies: early comparison of tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil, and steroid dosing, and newer immune‐monitoring. Transplantation 2005;80(4):457‐65. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Ciancio G, Burke GW, Gaynor JJ, Mattiazzi AD, Carreno MR, Rosen A, et al. Randomized trial of three different induction regimens to prevent acute renal allograft rejection: early results [abstract]. American Journal of Transplantation 2004;4(Suppl 8):266. [CENTRAL: CN‐00509135] [Google Scholar]
  5. Ciancio G, Burke GW, Gaynor JJ, Roth D, Kupin W, Rosen A, et al. A randomized trial of thymoglobulin vs. alemtuzumab (with lower dose maintenance immunosuppression) vs. daclizumab in renal transplantation at 24 months of follow‐up. Clinical Transplantation 2008;22(2):200‐10. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Ciancio G, Burke GW, Mattiazzi AD, Illanes HG, Gaynor JJ, Carreno M, et al. A randomized trial of three different antibody induction regimens in renal transplantation [abstract no: 1625]. American Journal of Transplantation 2005;5(Suppl 11):569. [CENTRAL: CN‐00644195] [Google Scholar]
  7. Ciancio G, Gaynor JJ, Guerra G, Sageshima J, Chen L, Mattiazzi A, et al. Randomized trial of three induction antibodies in kidney transplantation: long‐term results. Transplantation 2014;97(11):1128‐38. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Ciancio G, Gaynor JJ, Sageshima J, Chen L, Roth D, Kupin W. Machine perfusion in kidney transplantation: better outcomes in the presence of longer pump time [abstract no: 1011]. American Journal of Transplantation 2010;10(Suppl 4):333. [EMBASE: 70464387] [Google Scholar]
  9. Ciancio G, Gaynor JJ, Sageshima J, Roth D, Kupin W, Guerra G, et al. Machine perfusion following static cold storage preservation in kidney transplantation: donor‐matched pair analysis of the prognostic impact of longer pump time. Transplant International 2012;25(1):34‐40. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Ciancio 2010 {published data only}

  1. Baruqui JA, Ciancio G, Gaynor J, Guerra G, Sageshima J, Chen L, et al. Randomized trial of three induction antibodies in kidney transplantation: long‐term results [abstract no: P‐37]. American Journal of Transplantation 2014;14(Suppl 3):80. [EMBASE: 71388259] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Ciancio G, Gaynor JJ, Guerra G, Sageshima J, Chen L, Mattiazzi A, et al. Randomized trial of three induction antibodies in kidney transplantation: long‐term results. Transplantation 2014;97(11):1128‐38. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Ciancio G, Gaynor JJ, Roth D, Kupin W, Hanson L, Tueros L, et al. Randomized trial of thymoglobulin versus alemtuzumab (with lower dose maintenance immunosuppression) versus daclizumab in living donor renal transplantation. Transplantation Proceedings 2010;42(9):3503‐6. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Cole 1994 {published data only}

  1. Cole EH, Cattran DC, Farewell VT, Aprile M, Bear RA, Pei YP, et al. A comparison of rabbit antithymocyte serum and OKT3 as prophylaxis against renal allograft rejection. Transplantation 1994;57(1):60‐7. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Condie 1985 {published data only}

  1. Condie RM, Waskosky KE, Hall BL. Efficacy of Minnesota antilymphoblast globulin in renal transplantation: a multicenter, placebo‐controlled, prospective, randomized, double‐blind study. Transplantation Proceedings 1985;17(1 Pt 2):1304‐10. [EMBASE: 1985078723] [Google Scholar]

Cosimi 1976 {published data only}

  1. Cosimi AB. The clinical value of antilymphocyte antibodies. Transplantation Proceedings 1981;13(1 Pt 1):462‐8. [MEDLINE: ] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Cosimi AB, Wortis HH, Delmonico FL, Russell PS. Randomized clinical trial of antithymocyte globulin in cadaver renal allograft recipients: importance of T cell monitoring. Surgery 1976;80(2):155‐63. [MEDLINE: ] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Wechter WJ, Brodie JA, Morrell RM, Rafi M, Schultz JR. Antithymocyte globulin (ATGAM) in renal allograft recipients. Multicenter trials using a 14‐dose regimen. Transplantation 1979;28(4):294‐302. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Debure 1987 {published data only}

  1. Debure A, Chkoff N, Chatenoud L, Lacombe M, Campos H, Noel LH, et al. One‐month prophylactic use of OKT3 in cadaver kidney transplant recipients. Transplantation 1988;45(3):546‐53. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Debure A, Chkoff N, Chatenoud L, Lacombe M, Campos H, Noel LH, et al. Preventive treatment of rejection by the prolonged administration of OKT3: decrease of the immune response of the host [Traitement prophylactique du rejet par l'administration prolongee d'OKT3: diminution de la reponse immune de l'hote]. Nephrologie 1987;8(3):87‐94. [MEDLINE: ] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

De Pauw 1990 {published data only}

  1. Pauw L, Abramowicz D, Goldman M, Vereerstraeten P, Kinnaert P, Toussaint C. Comparison between prophylactic use of OKT3 and cyclosporine in cadaveric renal transplantation. Transplantation Proceedings 1990;22(4):1759‐60. [MEDLINE: ] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Diethelm 1979 {published data only}

  1. Diethelm AG, Blackstone E, Whelchel JD, Pass RF, Chambers L, Phillips SJ, et al. The adjunctive value of equine antithymocyte membrane globulin in a randomized study of patients undergoing cadaveric renal transplantation. Transplantation Proceedings 1979;11(1):27‐30. [MEDLINE: ] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

EARTS Study 1999 {published data only}

  1. Salmela K, Wramner L, Ekberg H, Hauser I, Bentdal O, Lins LE, et al. A randomized multicenter trial of the anti‐ICAM‐1 monoclonal antibody (enlimomab) for the prevention of acute rejection and delayed onset of graft function in cadaveric renal transplantation: a report of the European Anti‐ICAM‐1 Renal Transplant Study Group. Transplantation 1999;67(5):729‐36. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Ejaz 2013 {published data only}

  1. Ejaz N, Shields A, Alloway R, Sadaka B, Girnita A, Mogilishetty G, et al. A prospective, randomized pilot study of B‐cell targeted induction therapy in sensitized kidney transplant recipients: final report [abstract no: 175]. American Journal of Transplantation 2013;13(Suppl S5):84. [EMBASE: 71056751] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Ejaz NS, Shields AR, Alloway RR, Sadaka B, Girnita AL, Mogilishetty G, et al. Randomized controlled pilot study of B cell‐targeted induction therapy in HLA sensitized kidney transplant recipients. American Journal of Transplantation 2013;13(12):3142‐54. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Schmidt N, Shields AR, Alloway RR, Sadaka B, Mogilishetty G, Kremer J, et al. Randomized controlled trial of B‐cell targeted induction therapy in HLA sensitized kidney transplant recipients: preliminary results [abstract no: 100]. American Journal of Transplantation 2012;12(Suppl S3):56. [EMBASE: 70746047] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Farney 2008 {published data only}

  1. Doares W, Ashcraft E, Singh R, Hart L, Farney A, Hartmann E, et al. Prospective, randomized, single‐center trial of alemtuzumab vs rabbit anti‐thymocyte globulin induction in renal and pancreas transplant: infectious complications update [abstract no: 315]. American Journal of Transplantation 2009;9(Suppl 2):282‐3. [EMBASE: 70010188] [Google Scholar]
  2. Farney A, Rogers J, Doares W, Iskandar S, Orlando G, Adams P, et al. 7 year results of a prospective randomized study of alemtuzumab vs rabbit anti‐thymocyte globulin induction in kidney and kidney pancreas transplantation [abstract]. Transplantation 2014;98(Suppl 1):90. [EMBASE: 71543817] [Google Scholar]
  3. Farney A, Rogers J, Hart L, Doares W, Iskandar S, Orlando G, et al. Long‐term results of a prospective randomized study of alemtuzumab vs rabbit anti‐thymocyte globulin induction in kidney and kidney pancreas transplantation [abstract no: 101]. American Journal of Transplantation 2012;12(Suppl S3):56. [EMBASE: 70746048] [Google Scholar]
  4. Farney A, Singh R, Rogers J, Ashcroft E, Hartmann E, Hart L, et al. A prospective randomized trial of alemtuzumab versus rabbit anti‐thymocyte globulin induction in kidney and pancreas transplantation: minimum 6 months follow up [abstract no: 796]. Transplantation 2008;86(2S):278. [CENTRAL: CN‐00740550] [Google Scholar]
  5. Farney A, Sundberg A, Moore P, Hartmann E, Rogers J, Doares W, et al. A randomized trial of alemtuzumab vs. anti‐thymocyte globulin induction in renal and pancreas transplantation. Clinical Transplantation 2008;22(1):41‐9. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Farney AC, Doares W, Rogers J, Singh R, Hartmann E, Hart L, et al. A randomized trial of alemtuzumab versus antithymocyte globulin induction in renal and pancreas transplantation. Transplantation 2009;88(6):810‐9. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Farney AC, Singh R, Rogers J, Ashcroft E, Hartmann E, Hart L, et al. A prospective randomized study of alemtuzumab vs rabbit anti‐thymocyte globulin induction in kidney and pancreas transplantation [abstract no: 532]. American Journal of Transplantation 2008;8(Suppl 2):320. [CENTRAL: CN‐00653719] [Google Scholar]
  8. Hartmann EL, Doares W, Reeves‐Daniel A, Rogers J, Singh R, Hart L, et al. Safety and efficacy of lymphocyte‐depleting induction therapy in older transplant recipients: should grandpa receive campath? [abstract no: 1755]. American Journal of Transplantation 2009;9(Suppl 2):675. [CENTRAL: CN‐00795687] [Google Scholar]
  9. Singh R, Farney A, Rogers J, Doares W, Hartmann E, Reeves‐Daniel A, et al. A randomized, prospective trial of alemtuzumab versus rabbit anti‐thymocyte globulin induction in kidney‐pancreas transplantation: a single center experience [abstract no: 87]. American Journal of Transplantation 2009;9(Suppl 2):216. [CENTRAL: CN‐00790946] [Google Scholar]
  10. Stratta R, Ashcraft E, Hartmann E, Rogers J, Doares W, Hart L, et al. A prospective randomized comparison of alemtuzumab versus rabbit anti‐thymocyte globulin induction in renal and pancreas transplantation [abstract no: P132]. Transplant International 2007;20(Suppl 2):127. [CENTRAL: CN‐00740553] [Google Scholar]
  11. Stratta R, Rogers J, Orlando G, Farooq U, Al‐Shraideh Y, Doares W, et al. 5 year results of a prospective, randomized single center study of alemtuzumab compared to rabbit anti‐thymocyte globulin induction in simultaneous kidney‐pancreas transplantation [abstract]. Transplantation 2014;98(Suppl 1):215. [EMBASE: 71544175] [Google Scholar]
  12. Stratta R, Singh R, Farney A, Rogers J, Doares W, Hartman E. A randomized, prospective trial of alemtuzumab versus rabbit anti‐thymocyte globulin induction in kidney‐pancrease transplantation: a single center experience [abstract no: O‐289]. Transplant International 2009;22(Suppl 2):76‐7. [Google Scholar]
  13. Stratta RJ, Rogers J, Hart L, Doares W, Kaczmorski S, Reeves‐Daniel A, et al. 5 year results of a prospective randomized single center study of alemtuzumab compared to rabbit anti‐thymocyte globulin induction in kidney‐pancreas transplantation [abstract]. Transplantation 2013;96(Suppl 6):S86. [EMBASE: 71249227] [Google Scholar]
  14. Stratta RJ, Rogers J, Orlando G, Farooq U, Al‐Shraideh Y, Doares W, et al. Depleting antibody induction in simultaneous pancreas‐kidney transplantation: a prospective single‐center comparison of alemtuzumab versus rabbit anti‐thymocyte globulin. Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy 2014;14(12):1723‐30. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Stratta RJ, Rogers J, Orlando G, Farooq U, Al‐Shraideh Y, Farney AC. 5‐year results of a prospective, randomized, single‐center study of alemtuzumab compared with rabbit antithymocyte globulin induction in simultaneous kidney‐pancreas transplantation. Transplantation Proceedings 2014;46(6):1928‐31. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Frey 1991 {published data only}

  1. Frey DJ, Matas AJ, Gillingham KJ, Canafax D, Payne WD, Dunn DL, et al. MALG vs OKT3 following renal transplantation: a randomized prospective trial. Transplantation Proceedings 1991;23(1 Pt 2):1048‐9. [MEDLINE: ] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Frey DJ, Matas AJ, Gillingham KJ, Canafax D, Payne WD, Dunn DL, et al. Sequential therapy‐‐a prospective randomized trial of MALG versus OKT3 for prophylactic immunosuppression in cadaver renal allograft recipients. Transplantation 1992;54(1):50‐6. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Friend 1987 {published data only}

  1. Friend PJ, Calne RY, Hale G, Waldmann H, Evans DB, Rolles K, et al. Prophylactic use of an antilymphocyte monoclonal antibody following renal transplantation: a randomized controlled trial. Transplantation Proceedings 1987;19(1 Pt 3):1898‐900. [MEDLINE: ] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Friend PJ, Hale G, Waldmann H, Gore S, Thiru S, Joysey V, et al. Campath‐1M‐‐prophylactic use after kidney transplantation. A randomized controlled clinical trial. Transplantation 1989;48(2):248‐53. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Friend PJ, Waldmann H, Hale G, Tighe H, Calne R. The use of anti‐lymphocyte monoclonal antibodies following organ transplantation [abstract]. Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation 1988;3(1):97‐8. [CENTRAL: CN‐00796675] [Google Scholar]

Fries 1988a {published data only}

  1. Fries D. Optimal results in cadaver renal transplantation using prophylactic ALG, cyclosporin (CsA) and prednisone (P) [abstract]. Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation 1988;3(1):95. [CENTRAL: CN‐00260355] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Fries D, Hiesse C, Charpentier B, Lantz O, Bensadoun H, Benoit G. A single center experience with "low‐dose" cyclosporine in cadaveric renal transplantation. Clinical Transplants 1988:115‐29. [MEDLINE: ] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Fukuuchi 1996 {published data only}

  1. Fukuuchi F, Lefrancois N, Bosshard S, Chapuis F, Dubernard JM, Touraine JL. Comparison of prophylactic OKT3 versus ATG in immunologic high risk cadaver renal transplant recipients [abstract]. Journal of the American Society of Nephrology 1995;6(3):1084. [CENTRAL: CN‐00484030] [Google Scholar]
  2. Fukuuchi F, Lefrancois N, Chapuis F, Gebuhrer L, Bosshard S, Dubernard JM, et al. Comparative efficacy of prophylactic monoclonal (OKT3) and polyclonal antibodies (ATG) in immunologic high‐risk renal transplant recipients. Transplantation Proceedings 1996;28(5):2808‐9. [MEDLINE: ] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Gianello 1987 {published data only}

  1. Gianello P, Squifflet JP, Pirson Y, Stoffel M, Dereme T, Alexandre GP. Cyclosporine‐steroids versus conventional therapy in cadaver kidney transplantation: analysis of a randomized trial at two years. Transplantation Proceedings 1987;19(1 Pt 3):1867‐72. [MEDLINE: ] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Grafals 2014 {published data only}

  1. Grafals M, Simpson M, Gilligan H, Pomposelli J, Akoad M, Kwaja K, et al. Prospective randomized study of low dose antithymocyte globulin as induction in non sensitized adult renal transplant recipients [abstract no: C1351]. American Journal of Transplantation 2013;13(Suppl 5):430. [EMBASE: 71057927] [Google Scholar]
  2. Grafals M, Smith B, Murakami N, Trabucco A, Hamill K, Marangos E, et al. Immunophenotyping and efficacy of low dose ATG in non‐sensitized kidney recipients undergoing early steroid withdrawal: a randomized pilot study. PLoS ONE [Electronic Resource] 2014;9(8):e104408. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Smith B, Grafals M, Murakami N, Trabucco A, Hamill K, Marangos E, et al. Immune phenotyping and efficacy of low dose ATG in non‐sensitized kidney recipients undergoing early steroid withdrawal: a randomized pilot study [abstract]. Transplantation 2014;98(Suppl 1):580. [EMBASE: 71545491] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Grino 1990 {published data only}

  1. Grino JM, Alsina J, Sabater R, Castelao AM, Gil‐Vernet S, Andres E, et al. Antilymphoblast globulin, cyclosporine, and steroids in cadaveric renal transplantation. Transplantation 1990;49(6):1114‐7. [2360253] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Koga A, Moreso FJ, Seron D, Gil‐Vernet S, Cruzado JM, Castelao AM, et al. Beneficial effect of concomitant induction with antilymphoblast globulin, cyclosporine, and steroids on long‐term renal allograft outcome. Transplantation Proceedings 2004;36(5):1305‐7. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Grino 1991 {published data only}

  1. Gonzalez C, Grino JM, Castelao AM, Seron D, Gil‐Vernet S, Andres E, et al. Pre‐transplant ALG, low dose cyclosporine (CsA) and steroids versus pre‐transplant OKT3, CsA and steroids in kidney cadaveric transplantation [abstract]. Kidney International 1990;37(6):1601. [CENTRAL: CN‐00601919] [Google Scholar]
  2. Grino JM, Castelao AM, Gonzalez C, Seron D, Gil‐Vernet S, Andres E, et al. Pre‐transplant ALG, low dose cyclosporine (CYA) and steroids in kidney cadaveric transplantation [abstract]. 11th International Congress of Nephrology; 1990 Jul 15‐20; Tokyo, Japan. 1990:513A. [CENTRAL: CN‐00601920]
  3. Grino JM, Castelao AM, Seron D, Gonzalez C, Galceran JM, Gil‐Vernet S, et al. Antilymphocyte globulin versus OKT3 induction therapy in cadaveric kidney transplantation: a prospective randomized study. American Journal of Kidney Diseases 1992;20(6):603‐10. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Grino JM, Castelao AM, Seron D, Gonzalez C, Galceran JM, Gil‐Vernet S, et al. Prophylactic OKT3, CyA, and steroids versus antilymphoblast globulin, CyA, and steroids in cadaveric kidney transplantation. Transplantation Proceedings 1992;24(1):39‐41. [MEDLINE: ] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Grino JM, Castelao AM, Seron D, Gonzalez C, Gil‐Vernet S, Andres E, et al. Antilymphocyte serum, cyclosporine and corticoids, versus OKT3, cyclosporine, and corticoids in kidney transplantation [Serum anti‐lymphocyte, ciclosporine et corticoides, versus OKT3, ciclosporine et corticoides en transplantation renale]. Presse Medicale 1991;20(40):2039‐42. [MEDLINE: ] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Mestre M, Gonzalez C, Grino JM, Valls A, Bonete J, Mane E, et al. Sequential monitoring of immunoregulatory T cell subsets in renal transplantation. Transplantation Proceedings 1992;24(1):73‐5. [MEDLINE: ] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Grundmann 1984 {published data only}

  1. Grundmann R. Infectious diseases under prophylactic ALG treatment and their prevention in a prospectively randomized trial. Scandinavian Journal of Urology & Nephrology Supplementum 1985;92:33‐5. [MEDLINE: ] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Grundmann R, Wienand P, Hesse U. Improvement in cyclosporine handling by anti‐lymphocyte globulin in the early post‐operative period. Proceedings of the European Dialysis & Transplant Association ‐ European Renal Association 1985;21:987‐91. [MEDLINE: ] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Grundmann R, Wienand P, Hesse U. Improvement of the cyclosporin A handling by ALG in the early postoperative period [abstract]. Kidney International 1984;26(4):637. [CENTRAL: CN‐00601926] [Google Scholar]
  4. Grundmann R, Wienand P, Meider G, Vlaho V, Pichlmaier H. Use and limits of preventive antilymphocyte globulin therapy following kidney transplantation. A prospective randomized study [Nutzen und grenzen einer prophylaktischen antilymphozytenglobulin‐therapie nach nierentransplantation. Eine prospektiv randomisierte studie]. Klinische Wochenschrift 1984;62(20):979‐85. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Grundmann 1987 {published data only}

  1. Grundmann R, Hesse U, Wienand P, Baldamus C, Arns W. Graft survival and long‐term renal function after sequential conventional cyclosporin A therapy in cadaver kidney transplantation‐‐a prospective randomized trial. Klinische Wochenschrift 1987;65(18):879‐84. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Grundmann R, Wienand P, Hesse U. Sequential conventional and cyclosporine therapy in cadaver renal transplantation‐‐a prospective randomized trial. Transplantation Proceedings 1987;19(5):4033‐4. [MEDLINE: ] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Guttmann 1997 {published data only}

  1. Guttmann RD, TEAMS1 Group (Transplant European Antilfa Multicenter Study Group). Randomized clinical trial of anti‐lfa‐1 monoclonal antibody in cadaveric renal transplantation: a European multicenter study [abstract]. 16th Annual Meeting. American Society of Transplant Physicians (ASTP); 1997 May 10‐14; Chicago (ILL). 1997:258. [CENTRAL: CN‐00509222]

Halloran 1982 {published data only}

  1. Halloran P, Ludwin D, Aprile M. Randomized comparison between cyclosporine and conventional therapy plus Minnesota antilymphocyte globulin in cadaveric renal transplantation. Transplantation Proceedings 1983;15(4 Suppl 1‐2):2513‐6. [EMBASE: 1984089086] [Google Scholar]
  2. Halloran PF, Lien J, Aprile M, White N. Preliminary results of a randomized comparison of cyclosporine and Minnesota antilymphoblast globulin. Transplantation Proceedings 1982;14(4):627‐30. [MEDLINE: ] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Hanaway 2011 {published data only}

  1. Hanaway M, Woodle ES, Mulgaonkar S, Peddi R, Harrison G, Vandeputte K, et al. 12 month results of a multicenter, randomized trial comparing three induction agents (alemtuzumab, thymoglobulin and basiliximab) with tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil and a rapid steroid withdrawal in renal transplantation [abstract no: 135]. American Journal of Transplantation 2008;8(Suppl 2):215. [Google Scholar]
  2. Hanaway MJ, Woodle ES, Mulgaonkar S, Peddi VR, Kaufman DB, First MR, et al. Alemtuzumab induction in renal transplantation. New England Journal of Medicine 2011;364(20):1909‐19. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Holman J, Harrison G, Vandeputte K, First R, Fitzsimmons W. Immune cell activation comparing three induction agents (alemtuzumab, thymoglobulin and basiliximab) with tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil and a rapid steroid withdrawal in renal transplantation [abstract no: 553]. Transplantation 2008;86(2 Suppl):194. [CENTRAL: CN‐00676047] [Google Scholar]
  4. Mulgaonkar S, Hanaway M, Woodle ES, Peddi R, Harrison G, Vandeputte K, et al. Continuing 24 month results of a multicenter, randomized trial comparing three induction agents (alemtuzumab, thymoglobulin and basiliximab) with tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil and a rapid steroid withdrawal in renal transplantation [abstract no: 312]. American Journal of Transplantation 2009;9(Suppl 2):282. [EMBASE: 70010185] [Google Scholar]
  5. Peddi R, Hanaway M, Woodle S, Mulgaonkar S, Harrison G, Vandeputte K, et al. Final 36 month results of a randomized trial comparing three induction agents (alemtuzumab, thymoglobulin and basiliximab) with tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil and rapid steroid withdrawal in renal transplantation [abstract no: 35]. American Journal of Transplantation 2010;10(Suppl 4):49. [EMBASE: 70463396] [Google Scholar]
  6. Woodle S, Hanaway M, Mulgaonkar S, Peddi R, Harrison G, Vandeputte K, et al. 12 month results of a multicenter, randomized trial comparing three induction agents (alemtuzumab, thymoglobulin and basiliximab) with tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil and a rapid steroid withdrawal in renal transplantation [abstract no: 876]. Transplantation 2008;86(2 Suppl):306. [CENTRAL: CN‐00653740] [Google Scholar]

Hanto 1991 {published data only}

  1. Hanto DW, Jendrisak MD, McCullough CS, So SK, Marsh JW, Rush T, et al. A prospective randomized comparison of prophylactic ALG and OKT3 in cadaver kidney allograft recipients. Transplantation Proceedings 1991;23(1 Pt 2):1050‐1. [MEDLINE: ] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Hanto DW, Jendrisak MD, So SK, McCullough CS, Rush TM, Michalski SM, et al. Induction immunosuppression with antilymphocyte globulin or OKT3 in cadaver kidney transplantation. Results of a single institution prospective randomized trial. Transplantation 1994;57(3):377‐84. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Henry 2001 {published data only}

  1. Henry ML, Elkhammas EA, Bumgardner G, Davies EA, Pelletier RP, et al. A prospective randomized trial of neoral and cellcept with and without OKT3 induction [abstract]. Transplantation 1998;65(12):S191. [CENTRAL: CN‐00445692] [Google Scholar]
  2. Henry ML, Pelletier RP, Elkhammas EA, Bumgardner GL, Davies EA, Ferguson RM. A randomized prospective trial of OKT3 induction in the current immunosuppression era. Clinical Transplantation 2001;15(6):410‐4. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Hourmant 1985a {published data only}

  1. Hourmant M, Soulillou JP, Guenel J. Comparison of three immuno‐suppressive regimens in kidney transplantation: CyA, ATG and CyA, ATG and conventional treatment ‐ a one‐center randomized study [abstract]. Kidney International 1984;26(4):639. [CENTRAL: CN‐00626072] [Google Scholar]
  2. Hourmant M, Soulillou JP, Guenel J. Comparison of three immunosuppressive regimens in kidney transplantation: a single‐centre randomised study. Proceedings of the European Dialysis & Transplant Association ‐ European Renal Association 1985;21:982‐6. [MEDLINE: ] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Hourmant M, Soulillou JP, Guenel J. Comparison of three immunosuppressive strategies in kidney transplantation: Antithymocyte globulin and conventional treatment, antithymocyte globulin and cyclosporine, and cyclosporine. A one‐center randomized study. Transplantation Proceedings 1985;17(1 Pt 2):1158‐61. [EMBASE: 1985079646] [Google Scholar]

Hourmant 1996 {published data only}

  1. Hourmant M. Multicenter comparative study of an anti‐lfa1 adhesion molecule monoclonal antibody and thymoglobulin in prophylaxis of acute rejection in kidney transplantation. [abstract]. ISN XIII International Congress of Nephrology; 1995 Jul 2‐6; Madrid, Spain. 1995:336. [CENTRAL: CN‐00509239]
  2. Hourmant M, Bedrossian J, Durand D, Kessler M, Branchu Y, Caudrelier P, et al. Multicenter comparative study of an anti‐LFA‐1 adhesion molecule monoclonal antibody and antithymocyte globulin in prophylaxis of acute rejection in kidney transplantation. Transplantation Proceedings 1995;27(1):864. [MEDLINE: ] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Hourmant M, Bedrossian J, Durand D, Kessler M, Lebranchu Y, Caudrelier P, et al. Multicenter study of an anti‐LFA1 adhesion molecule monoclonal antibody (Moab) and anti‐thymocyte globulin (ATG) in prophylaxis of acute rejection (AR) in kidney transplantation (KT) [abstract]. 14th Annual Meeting. American Society of Transplant Physicians (ASTP); 1995 May 14‐17; Chicago (ILL). 1995.
  4. Hourmant M, Bedrossian J, Durand D, Lebranchu Y, Renoult E, Caudrelier P, et al. A randomized multicenter trial comparing leukocyte function‐associated antigen‐1 monoclonal antibody with rabbit antithymocyte globulin as induction treatment in first kidney transplantations. Transplantation 1996;62(11):1565‐70. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Jakobsen 1981 {published data only}

  1. Jakobsen A, Flatmark A, Lundgren G, Solheim B, Groth CG. A controlled trial with AHLG Behring: lack of effect on cadaveric renal graft survival. Scandinavian Journal of Urology & Nephrology Supplementum 1981;64:205‐12. [MEDLINE: ] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Kasiske 1997 {published data only}

  1. Kasiske BL, Goerdt PJ, Heim‐Duthoy K, Rao KV, Dahl DC, Ney AL, et al. Interim results of a randomized controlled trial comparing antithymocyte globulin (ATG) with cyclosporine (CSA) induction [abstract]. Journal of the American Society of Nephrology 1995;6(3):1097. [CENTRAL: CN‐00484599] [Google Scholar]
  2. Kasiske BL, Johnson HJ, Goerdt PJ, Heim‐Duthoy KL, Rao VK, Dahl DC, et al. A randomized trial comparing cyclosporine induction with sequential therapy in renal transplant recipients. American Journal of Kidney Diseases 1997;30(5):639‐45. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Khosroshahi 2008 {published data only}

  1. Khosroshahi HT, Tubbs RS, Shoja MM, Ghafari A, Noshad H, Ardalan MR. Effect of prophylaxis with low‐dose anti‐thymocyte globulin on prevention of acute kidney allograft rejection. Transplantation Proceedings 2008;40(1):137‐9. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Kountz 1977 {published data only}

  1. Butt KM, Zielinski CM, Parsa I, Elberg AJ, Wechter W, Kountz SL. Trends in immunosuppression for kidney transplantation. Kidney International ‐ Supplement 1978;13(Suppl 8):S95‐8. [MEDLINE: ] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Kountz SL, Butt KH, Rao TK, Zielinski CM, Rafi M, Schultz JR. Antithymocyte globulin (ATG) dosage and graft survival in renal transplantation. Transplantation Proceedings 1977;9(1):1023‐5. [MEDLINE: ] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Kreis 1980 {published data only}

  1. Crosnier J, Kreis H, Descamps JM, Mansouri R. Are there non‐steroid‐dependent rejection episodes?. Proceedings of the European Dialysis & Transplant Association 1980;17:391‐5. [MEDLINE: ] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Kreis H, Mansouri R, Descamps JM, Dandavino R, N'Guyen AT, Bach JF, et al. Antithymocyte globulin in cadaver kidney transplantation: a randomized trial based on T‐cell monitoring. Kidney International 1981;19(3):438‐44. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Kreis 1986 {published data only}

  1. Kreis H, Chkoff N, Chatenoud L. Prolonged administration of a monoclonal anti‐T3 cell antibody (ORTHOCLONE OKT3) to kidney allograft recipients. Transplantation Proceedings 1986;18(4):954‐6. [EMBASE: 1986223864] [Google Scholar]

Kumar 1998a {published data only}

  1. Kumar MS, Cahill K, Kumar AM, Panigrahi D, Seirka D, Singleton R, et al. ATGAM versus OKT3 induction therapy in cadaveric kidney transplantation: patient and graft survival, CD3 subset, infection, and cost analysis. Transplantation Proceedings 1998;30(4):1351‐2. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Kumar MS, Laskow DA, Panigrahi D, Kumar AM, Cahill K, Pankewyez O, et al. Correlation of CD3 counts and serum IL‐10 levels during induction to incidence of rejections and infections in cadaveric kidney recipients [abstract]. Journal of the American Society of Nephrology 1998;9(Program & Abstracts):683A. [CENTRAL: CN‐00446225] [Google Scholar]

Launois 1977 {published data only}

  1. Launois B, Campion JP, Fauchet R, Kerbaol M, Cartier F. Prospective randomized clinical trial in patients with cadaver‐kidney transplants. Transplantation Proceedings 1977;9(1):1027‐30. [MEDLINE: ] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Lazarovits 1993 {published data only}

  1. Lazarovits AI, Rochon J, Banks L, Hollomby DJ, Muirhead N, Jevnikar AM, et al. Human mouse chimeric CD7 monoclonal antibody (SDZCHH380) for the prophylaxis of kidney transplant rejection. Journal of Immunology 1993;150(11):5163‐74. [MEDLINE: ] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Lazarovits AI, Rochon J, Banks L, Hollomby DJ, Muirhead N, Jevnikar AM, et al. Human mouse chimeric CD7 monoclonal antibody (SDZCHH380) for the prophylaxis of kidney transplant rejection. Transplantation Proceedings 1993;25(1 Pt 1):820‐2. [MEDLINE: ] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Sharma L, Muirhead N, Lazarovits AI. Human mouse chimeric Cd7 monoclonal antibody (SCZCHH380) for the prophylaxis of kidney transplant rejection: no transplant losses and absence of chronic rejection at 4 years [abstract]. 15th Annual Meeting American Society of Transplant Physicians (ASTP); 1996 May 10‐14; Chicago Ill. 1996.

Lu 2011 {published data only}

  1. Lu TM, Yang SL, Wu WZ, Tan JM. Alemtuzumab induction therapy in highly sensitized kidney transplant recipients. Chinese Medical Journal 2011;124(5):664‐8. [MEDLINE: ] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Maiorca 1984 {published data only}

  1. Maiorca R, Cristinelli L, Scolari S, Sandrini S, Brunori G, Tonini G, et al. Prospective controlled trial with antilynfocytic globulin (A.L.G.), in first cadaveric renal transplants treated with low‐dose steroids both in prophylaxis and rejection therapy [abstract]. Kidney International 1984;26(4):644. [CENTRAL: CN‐00775915] [Google Scholar]

Margreiter 2008 {published data only}

  1. Margreiter R, Klempnauer J, Neuhaus P, Muehlbacher F. Alemtuzumab (Campath‐1H) induction followed by tacrolimus monotherapy vs tacrolimus based triple drug immunosuppression in cadaveric renal transplantation ‐ results of a multicenter trial [abstract no: 333]. American Journal of Transplantation 2007;7(Suppl 2):234. [CENTRAL: CN‐00644175] [Google Scholar]
  2. Margreiter R, Klempnauer J, Neuhaus P, Muehlbacher F, Boesmueller C, Calne RY. Alemtuzumab (Campath‐1H) and tacrolimus monotherapy after renal transplantation: results of a prospective randomized trial. American Journal of Transplantation 2008;8(7):1480‐5. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Martins 2004 {published data only}

  1. Martins LS, Sarmento AM, Dias L, Henriques AC, Borner G, Cabrita A. Results of safety and efficacy of two ATG bolus‐therapy regimen vs standard therapy in prophylaxis after renal transplantation in end stage renal disease patients [abstract]. Transplantation 2004;78(2 Suppl):266. [CENTRAL: CN‐00509341] [Google Scholar]

Michael 1989 {published data only}

  1. Michael H, Francos G, Burke J, Besarab A, Jarrell B, Moritz M, et al. Effect of cyclosporine (CYA) versus antilymphocyte globulin (ALG) on delayed graft function (DGF) in renal transplant patients [abstract]. Kidney International 1989;35(1):520. [CENTRAL: CN‐00626110] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Michael HJ, Francos GC, Burke JF, Besarab A, Moritz M, Gillum D, et al. A comparison of the effects of cyclosporine versus antilymphocyte globulin on delayed graft function in cadaver renal transplant recipients. Transplantation 1989;48(5):805‐8. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Minnesota Study 1982 {published data only}

  1. Boudreaux JP, McHugh L, Canafax DM, Ascher N, Sutherland DE, Payne W, et al. The impact of cyclosporine and combination immunosuppression on the incidence of posttransplant diabetes in renal allograft recipients. Transplantation 1987;44(3):376‐81. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Canafax DM, Min DI, Gruber SA, Matas AJ, Payne WD, Dunn DL, et al. Immunosuppression for cadaveric renal allograft recipients: a risk‐factor matched comparison of the Minnesota randomized trial with an antilymphoblast globulin, azathioprine, cyclosporine, and prednisone protocol. Clinical Transplantation 1989;3(2):110‐9. [EMBASE: 1989138098] [Google Scholar]
  3. Canafax DM, Simmons RL, Sutherland DE, Fryd DS, Strand MH, Ascher NL, et al. Early and late effects of two immunosuppressive drug protocols on recipients of renal allografts: results of the Minnesota randomized trial comparing cyclosporine versus antilymphocyte globulin‐azathioprine. Transplantation Proceedings 1986;18(2 Suppl 1):192‐6. [MEDLINE: ] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Canafax DM, Torres A, Fryd DS, Heil JE, Strand MH, Ascher NL, et al. The effects of delayed function on recipients of cadaver renal allografts. A study of 158 patients randomized to cyclosporine or ALG‐azathioprine. Transplantation 1986;41(2):177‐81. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Ferguson RM, Rynasiewicz JJ, Sutherland DE, Simmons RL, Najarian JS. Cyclosporin A in renal transplantation: a prospective randomized trial. Surgery 1982;92(2):175‐82. [MEDLINE: ] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Frick T, Fryd DS, Goodale RL, Simmons RL, Sutherland DE, Najarian JS. Incidence and treatment of candida esophagitis in patients undergoing renal transplantation. Data from the Minnesota prospective randomized trial of cyclosporine versus antilymphocyte globulin‐azathioprine. American Journal of Surgery 1988;155(2):311‐3. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Frick TW, Fryd DS, Goodale RL, Simmons RL, Sutherland DE, Najarian JS. Lack of association between azathioprine and acute pancreatitis in renal transplantation patients. Lancet 1991;337(8735):251‐2. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Frick TW, Fryd DS, Sutherland DE, Goodale RL, Simmons RL, Najarian JS. Hypercalcemia associated with pancreatitis and hyperamylasemia in renal transplant recipients. Data from the Minnesota randomized trial of cyclosporine versus antilymphoblast azathioprine. American Journal of Surgery 1987;154(5):487‐9. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Gores PF, Fryd DS, Sutherland DE, Najarian JS, Simmons RL. Hyperuricemia after renal transplantation. American Journal of Surgery 1988;156(5):397‐400. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Gruber S, Pescovitz M, Simmons R, Fryd D. Cyclosporine use lowers risk of thromboembolism in diabetic renal allograft recipients [abstract]. Kidney International 1987;31(1):458. [CENTRAL: CN‐00550666] [Google Scholar]
  11. Gruber SA, Chavers B, Payne WD, Fryd DS, Canafax DM, Simmons RL, et al. Allograft renal vascular thrombosis‐‐lack of increase with cyclosporine immunosuppression. Transplantation 1989;47(3):475‐8. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Gruber SA, Chavers B, Payne WD, Fryd DS, Canafax DM, Simmons RL, et al. Frequency of allograft renal vascular thrombosis under three immunosuppressive regimens at a single institution. Transplantation Proceedings 1989;21(1 Pt 2):2139‐40. [MEDLINE: ] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Gruber SA, Pescovitz M, Simmons RL, Najarian JS, Ascher NL, Payne WD, et al. Thromboembolic complications after renal transplantation: results from the randomized trial of cyclosporine v azathioprine‐antilymphocyte globulin. Transplantation Proceedings 1987;19(1 Pt 2):1815‐6. [MEDLINE: ] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Gruber SA, Pescovitz MD, Simmons RL, Najarian JS, Ascher NL, Payne WD, et al. Thromboembolic complications in renal allograft recipients. A report from the prospective randomized study of cyclosporine versus azathioprine‐antilymphocyte globulin. Transplantation 1987;44(6):775‐8. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Gruber SA, Simmons RL, Najarian JS, Vercellotti G, Ascher NL, Dunn DL, et al. Erythrocytosis and thromboembolic complications after renal transplantation: results from a randomized trial of cyclosporine versus azathioprine‐antilymphocyte globulin. Transplantation Proceedings 1988;20(3 Suppl 3):948‐50. [MEDLINE: ] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Hesse UJ, Fryd DS, Chatterjee SN, Simmons RL, Sutherland DE, Najarian JS. Pulmonary infections. The Minnesota randomized prospective trial of cyclosporine vs azathioprine‐antilymphocyte globulin for immunosuppression in renal allograft recipients. Archives of Surgery 1986;121(9):1056‐60. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Johnson CP, Simmons RL, Sutherland DE, Canafax DM, Ascher NL, Payne WD, et al. A randomized trial comparing cyclosporine with antilymphoblast‐globulin‐azathioprine for renal allograft recipients. Results at 2 1/2‐6 years. Transplantation 1988;45(2):380‐5. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Najarian JS, Ferguson RM, Sutherland DE. A prospective trial of the efficacy of cyclosporine in renal transplantation at the University of Minnesota. Transplantation Proceedings 1983;15(1):438‐41. [EMBASE: 1983156214] [Google Scholar]
  19. Najarian JS, Fryd DS, Strand M, Canafax DM, Ascher NL, Payne WD, et al. A single institution, randomized, prospective trial of cyclosporin versus azathioprine‐antilymphocyte globulin for immunosuppression in renal allograft recipients. Annals of Surgery 1985;201(2):142‐57. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Pescovitz MD, Gruber SA, Ascher NL, Kruse LV, Najarian JS, Payne WD, et al. Frequency of diabetes‐related complications in renal allograft recipients prospectively randomized to cyclosporine or azathioprine. Transplantation Proceedings 1987;19(1 Pt 2):1537‐8. [MEDLINE: ] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Rynasiewicz JJ, Sutherland DE, Ferguson RM, Squifflet JP, Morrow CE, Goetz FC, et al. Cyclosporin A for immunosuppression: observations in rat heart, pancreas, and islet allograft models and in human renal and pancreas transplantation. Diabetes 1982;31 Suppl 4:92‐108. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Simmons RL, Canafax DM, Strand M, Ascher NL, Payne WD, Sutherland DE, et al. Management and prevention of cyclosporine nephrotoxicity after renal transplantation: use of low doses of cyclosporine, azathioprine, and prednisone. Transplantation Proceedings 1985;17(4 Suppl 1):266‐75. [MEDLINE: ] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Sutherland DE, Fryd DS, Strand M, Ascher N, Simmons RL, Najarian JS. Results of renal transplantation in diabetics at the University of Minnesota since 1979, including a comparison of outcome in diabetic and nondiabetic recipients randomized to cyclosporine versus azathioprine for immunosuppression. Transplantation Proceedings 1984;16(3):629‐32. [MEDLINE: ] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Sutherland DE, Fryd DS, Strand MH, Canafax DM, Ascher NL, Payne WD, et al. Results of the Minnesota randomized prospective trial of cyclosporine versus azathioprine‐antilymphocyte globulin for immunosuppression in renal allograft recipients. American Journal of Kidney Diseases 1985;5(6):318‐27. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Sutherland DE, Payne WD, Fryd DS. Comparison of cyclosporine and azathioprine for immunosuppression in diabetic and nondiabetic renal allograft recipients. Transplantation Proceedings 1985;17(1 Pt 2):1204‐11. [EMBASE: 1985079661] [Google Scholar]
  26. Sutherland DE, Strand M, Fyd DS, Ferguson RM, Simmons RL, Ascher NL, et al. Comparison of azathioprine‐antilymphocyte globulin versus cyclosporine in renal transplantation. American Journal of Kidney Diseases 1984;3(6):456‐61. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Morales 1994a {published data only}

  1. Anonymous. Cyclosporine monotherapy versus OKT3 and cyclosporine versus prednisone and cyclosporine as induction therapy in older renal transplant patients: a multicenter randomized study. Spanish Monotherapy Study Group. Transplantation Proceedings 1994;26(5):2522‐4. [MEDLINE: ] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Morales JM, Marcen R, Grino JM, Arias M, Vilardell J. Comparison of three induction protocols in older renal transplant patients: cyclosporine (CYA) monotherapy (M) vs OKT3 and CYNA vs prednisone (P) and CYA. A multicenter randomized study [abstract]. Journal of the American Society of Nephrology 1993;4(Program & Abstracts):950. [CENTRAL: CN‐00485149] [Google Scholar]

Mourad 1998 {published data only}

  1. Anonymous. Tacrolimus in renal transplantation: a comparison of induction vs noninduction therapy (triple therapy): three‐month results. Transplantation Proceedings 1999;31(1‐2):330‐1. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Antoine C, Thakur S, Daugas E, Fraoui R, Boudjeltia S, Julia P, et al. Vascular microthrombosis in renal transplant recipients treated with tacrolimus. Transplantation Proceedings 1998;30(6):2813‐4. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Charpentier B. An induction versus no‐induction protocol in anticalcineurin‐based immunosuppression using very low‐dose steroids. Transplantation Proceedings 2001;33(4 Suppl):3S‐10S. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Charpentier B. Induction versus non‐induction protocols in anti‐calcineurin‐based immunosuppression. Transplantation Proceedings 2001;33(7‐8):3334‐6. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Mourad G, French and Belgian Tacrolimus Renal Transplantation Study Group. ATG‐Induction vs. non‐induction with tacrolimus‐based immunosuppression in renal transplantation [abstract]. XVIII International Congress of the Transplantation Society; 2000 Aug 27‐Sept 1; Rome, Italy. 2000. [CENTRAL: CN‐00446848]
  6. Mourad G, Garrigue V, Squifflet JP, Besse T, Berthoux F, Alamartine E, et al. Induction versus noninduction in renal transplant recipients with tacrolimus‐based immunosuppression. Transplantation 2001;72(6):1050‐5. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Niaudet 1990 {published data only}

  1. Niaudet P, Murcia I, Jean G, Broyer M. A comparative trial of OKT3 and antilymphocyte serum in the preventive treatment of rejection after kidney transplantation in children [Essai comparatif de l'OKT3 et du serum antilymphocytaire dans le traitement preventif du rejet apres transplantation renale chez l'enfant]. Annales de Pediatrie 1990;37(2):83‐5. [MEDLINE: ] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Norman 1988 {published data only}

  1. Norman DJ, Shield CF 3rd, Barry J, Bennett WM, Henell K, Kimball J, et al. Early use of OKT3 monoclonal antibody in renal transplantation to prevent rejection. American Journal of Kidney Diseases 1988;11(2):107‐10. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Norman 1993 {published data only}

  1. Abramowicz D, Norman DJ, Goldman M, Pauw L, Kinnaert P, Kahana L, et al. OKT3 prophylaxis improves long‐term renal graft survival in high‐risk patients as compared to cyclosporine: combined results from the prospective, randomized Belgian and US studies. Transplantation Proceedings 1995;27(1):852‐3. [MEDLINE: ] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Abramowicz D, Norman DJ, Vereerstraeten P, Goldman M, Pauw L, Vanherweghem JL, et al. OKT3 prophylaxis in renal grafts with prolonged cold ischemia times: association with improvement in long‐term survival. Kidney International 1996;49(3):768‐72. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Norman DJ, Kahana L, Stuart FP Jr, Thistlethwaite JR Jr, Shield CF 3rd, Monaco A, et al. A randomized clinical trial of induction therapy with OKT3 in kidney transplantation. Transplantation 1993;55(1):44‐50. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Shield CF 3rd, Jacobs RJ, Wyant S, Das A. A cost‐effectiveness analysis of OKT3 induction therapy in cadaveric kidney transplantation. American Journal of Kidney Diseases 1996;27(6):855‐64. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Norman 1993a {published data only}

  1. Norman DJ, Kimball JA, Barry JM. Cytokine‐release syndrome: differences between high and low doses of OKT3. Transplantation Proceedings 1993;25(2 Suppl 1):35‐8. [MEDLINE: ] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Norman DJ, Kimball JA, Bennett WM, Shihab F, Batiuk TD, Meyer MM, et al. A prospective, double‐blind, randomized study of high‐versus low‐dose OKT3 induction immunosuppression in cadaveric renal transplantation. Transplant International 1994;7(5):356‐61. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Norrby 1997 {published data only}

  1. Norrby J, Olausson M. A randomized clinical trial using ATG Fresenius or ATG Merieux as induction therapy in kidney transplantation. Transplantation Proceedings 1997;29(7):3135‐6. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Novick 1983 {published data only}

  1. Novick AC, Braun WE, Steinmuller D, Buszta C, Greenstreet R, Kiser W. A controlled randomized double‐blind study of antilymphoblast globulin in cadaver renal transplantation. Transplantation 1983;35(2):175‐9. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Perez‐Tamajon 1996 {published data only}

  1. Perez‐Tamajon L, González JM, Torres A, Rodriguez A, Hernandez D, Losada M, et al. Induction treatment with sequential quadruple therapy in renal transplantation: polyclonal vs. monoclonal AC at low doses [abstract]. Nefrología 1996;16:97. [CENTRAL: CN‐00602023] [Google Scholar]

Pernin 2012 {published data only}

  1. Pernin V, Portales P, Szwarc I, Garrigue V, Vetromile F, Delmas S, et al. Lymphocyte reconstitution after induction with thymoglobulin in renal transplantation: Impact of the mode of administration (daily vs intermittent treatment based on T lymphocyte monitoring) [abstract no: SAP671]. Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation 2012;27(Suppl 2):ii533‐4. [EMBASE: 70766907] [Google Scholar]

Raffaele 1991 {published data only}

  1. Raffaele P, Pouteil‐Noble C, Lefrancois N, Bosshard S, Betuel H, Aymard M, et al. Influence of a randomized monoclonal or polyclonal program of therapy on cytomegalovirus infection in kidney transplantation. Transplantation Proceedings 1991;23(1 Pt 2):1361‐2. [MEDLINE: ] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Rostaing 2010 {published data only}

  1. Rostaing L, Lavayssiere L, Kamar N. Hematologic adverse effects of 2 different polyclonal antilymphocyte preparations in de novo kidney transplant patients. Experimental & Clinical Transplantation 2010;8(2):178‐80. [MEDLINE: ] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Sakhrani 1992 {published data only}

  1. Sakhrani L, Aswad S, Obispo E, Mendez RG, Khetan U, Asai P, et al. Optimal dose of Minnesota antilymphocyte globulin for induction immunosuppression in cadaveric renal transplants. Transplantation Proceedings 1992;24(5):1730‐1. [MEDLINE: ] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Samsel 1999 {published data only}

  1. Samsel R, Chmura A, Korczak‐Kowalska G, Wlodarczyk Z, Pliszczynski J, Adadynski L, et al. Long term results of single perioperative high dose of ATG as induction in kidney transplantation [abstract]. American Journal of Transplantation 2004;4(Suppl 8):351. [CENTRAL: CN‐00509456] [Google Scholar]
  2. Samsel R, Chmura A, Wlodarczyk Z, Wyzgal J, Cieciura T, Lagiewska B, et al. Perioperative single high dose ATG‐Fresenius S administration as induction immunosuppressive therapy in cadaveric renal transplantation‐‐preliminary results. Annals of Transplantation 1999;4(2):37‐9. [MEDLINE: ] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Samsel R, Pliszczynski J, Chmura A, Korczak G, Wlodarczyk Z, Cieciura T, et al. Safety and efficacy of high dose ATG bolus administration on rewascularization in kidney graft patients‐‐long term results. Annals of Transplantation 2008;13(1):32‐9. [MEDLINE: ] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Samsel R, Rowinski W, Chmura A, Wlodarczyk Z, Wyzgal J, Cieciura T, et al. Perioperative administration of single, high‐dose of ATG‐Fresenius‐S as an induction immunosuppressive therapy in cadaveric renal transplantation: preliminary results. Transplantation Proceedings 2001;33(6):2952‐4. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Sansom 1976 {published data only}

  1. Sansom JR, Barnes AD, Hall CL. A randomized prospective clinical trial of antilymphocyte globulin in 100 cadaveric renal transplants. Postgraduate Medical Journal 1976;52(5 Suppl):75‐8. [MEDLINE: ] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Sharaf El Din 2006 {published data only}

  1. Sharaf EI Din UA, Sharaf EI Din BA, EI Damanhoury HA. Alemtuzumab induction as steroid sparing agent in living kidney transplantation: a randomized prospective controlled trial [abstract no: SA‐PO449]. Journal of the American Society of Nephrology 2006;17(Abstracts):670A. [CENTRAL: CN‐00644281] [Google Scholar]

Sheashaa 2008 {published data only}

  1. Sheashaa HA, Hamdy AF, Bakr MA, Abdelbaset SF, Ghoneim MA. Long‐term evaluation of single bolus high dose ATG induction therapy for prophylaxis of rejection in live donor kidney transplantation. International Urology & Nephrology 2008;40(2):515‐20. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Shield 1993 {published data only}

  1. Shield CF 3rd, Beilman G. Safety of OKT3 use in the operating room. Transplantation Proceedings 1993;25(2 Suppl 1):43‐4. [MEDLINE: ] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Slakey 1993 {published data only}

  1. Johnson CP, Slakey DP, Callaluce RD, Browne BJ, Roza AM, Adams MB. Prospective randomized comparison of quadruple vs triple therapy for first cadaver transplants with immediate function. Transplantation Proceedings 1993;25(1 Pt 1):585‐6. [MEDLINE: ] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Slakey DP, Johnson CP, Callaluce RD, Browne BJ, Zhu YR, Roza AM, et al. A prospective randomized comparison of quadruple versus triple therapy for first cadaver transplants with immediate function. Transplantation 1993;56(4):827‐31. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Smeekens 2013 {published data only}

  1. Joosten I, Baas MC, Kamburova EG, Hoogen MW, Koenen HJ, Hilbrands LB. Anti‐B cell therapy with rituximab as induction therapy in renal transplantation. Transplant Immunology 2014;31(4):207‐9. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Kamburova E, Koenen H, Hoogen M, Joosten I, Hilbrands L. A single dose of rituximab results in a long lasting B‐cell depletion in peripheral blood, without affecting the peripheral T‐cell compartment [abstract no: 186]. American Journal of Transplantation 2013;13(Suppl S5):87. [EMBASE: 71056762] [Google Scholar]
  3. Kamburova EG, Koenen HJ, Hoogen MW, Baas MC, Joosten I, Hilbrands LB. Longitudinal analysis of T and B cell phenotype and function in renal transplant recipients with or without rituximab induction therapy. PLoS ONE [Electronic Resource] 2014;9(11):e112658. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Kamburova EG, Hoogen MW, Koenen HJ, Baas MC, Hilbrands LB, Joosten I. Cytokine release after treatment with rituximab in renal transplant recipients. Transplantation 2015;99(9):1907‐11. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Smeekens SP, Hoogen MW, Kamburova EG, Veerdonk FL, Joosten I, Koenen HJ, et al. The effects of in vivo B‐cell depleting therapy on ex‐vivo cytokine production. Transplant Immunology 2013;28(4):183‐8. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Hoogen M, Kamburova E, Baas M, Steenbergen E, Florquin S, Koenen H, et al. Type of rejection and biopsy findings after induction therapy with a single dose of rituximab [abstract]. Transplantation 2014;98(Suppl 1):463. [EMBASE: 71545077] [Google Scholar]
  7. Hoogen M, Steenbergen E, Hoitsma A, Hilbrands L. Placebo‐controlled trial [abstract no: 266.1]. American Journal of Transplantation 2013;13(Suppl S5):112‐3. [EMBASE: 71056843] [Google Scholar]
  8. Hoogen MW, Kamburova EG, Baas MC, Steenbergen EJ, Florquin S, Koenen H, et al. Rituximab as induction therapy after renal transplantation: a randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled study of efficacy and safety. American Journal of Transplantation 2015;15(2):407‐16. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Spillner 1998 {published data only}

  1. Spillner J, Kohnle M, Albrecht KH, Heemann U. Anti‐LFA‐1 monoclonal antibody in renal transplantation: renal function, infections, and other complications. Transplantation Proceedings 1998;30(5):2163. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Squifflet 1997 {published data only}

  1. Squifflet JP, Besse T, Malaise J, Mourad M, Delcorde C, Hope JA, et al. BTI‐322 for induction therapy after renal transplantation: a randomized study. Transplantation Proceedings 1997;29(1‐2):317‐9. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Squifflet JP, Besse T, Mourad M, Malaise J, Delcorde C, Pirson Y, et al. A randomized study of BTI‐322 for the prevention of renal allograft rejection: one year follow up [abstract]. 16th Annual Meeting. American Society of Transplant Physicians (ASTP); 1997 May 10‐14; Chicago (ILL). 1997:258. [CENTRAL: CN‐00509490]

Steinmuller 1991 {published data only}

  1. Steinmuller DR, Hayes J, Novick AC, Streem SB, Hodge E, Slavis S, et al. Comparison of OKT3 to ALG for prophylaxis for patients with acute renal failure after cadaver renal transplantation [abstract]. 11th International Congress of Nephrology; 1990 Jul 15‐20; Tokyo, Japan. 1990:512A. [CENTRAL: CN‐00716029] [DOI] [PubMed]
  2. Steinmuller DR, Hayes JM, Novick AC, Streem SB, Hodge E, Slavis S, et al. Comparison of OKT3 with ALG for prophylaxis for patients with acute renal failure after cadaveric renal transplantation. Transplantation 1991;52(1):67‐71. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Stevens 2008 {published data only}

  1. Stevens R, Foster K, Miles C, Rigley T, Kalil A, Wrenshall L. A randomized 2X2 factorial trial: Part 1, single‐dose rATG induction improves long‐term renal transplant outcomes [abstract]. Transplantation 2014;98(Suppl 1):91. [EMBASE: 71543822] [Google Scholar]
  2. Stevens R, Foster K, Miles C, Rigley T, Wrenshall L. A randomized trial of renal transplantation: Steroid and calcineurin‐inhibitor withdrawal after rabbit anti‐thymocyte globulin induction [abstract]. Transplantation 2014;98(Suppl 1):476. [EMBASE: 71545124] [Google Scholar]
  3. Stevens RB. Modern approaches to combining sirolimus with calcineurin inhibitors. Transplantation Proceedings 2008;40(10 Suppl):S21‐4. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Stevens RB, Foster KW, Miles CD, Kalil AC, Florescu DF, Sandoz JP, et al. A randomized 2x2 factorial clinical trial of renal transplantation: steroid‐free maintenance immunosuppression with calcineurin inhibitor withdrawal after six months associates with improved renal function and reduced chronic histopathology. PLoS ONE [Electronic Resource] 2015;10(10):e0139247. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Stevens RB, Foster KW, Miles CD, Lane JT, Kalil AC, Florescu DF, et al. A randomized 2x2 factorial trial, part 1: single‐dose rabbit antithymocyte globulin induction may improve renal transplantation outcomes. Transplantation 2015;99(1):197‐209. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Stevens RB, Kalil AC, Miles CD, Florescu DF, Lane JT, Skorupa AJ, et al. Reduced patient mortality and infectious complications, and superior graft function, in renal transplant patients after single‐dose RATG induction; 5‐year data from a prospective, randomized trial [abstract no: 38]. American Journal of Transplantation 2010;10(Suppl 4):49‐50. [EMBASE: 70463399] [Google Scholar]
  7. Stevens RB, Lane JT, Boerner BP, Miles CD, Rigley TH, Sandoz JP, et al. Single‐dose rATG induction at renal transplantation: superior renal function and glucoregulation with less hypomagnesemia. Clinical Transplantation 2012;26(1):123‐32. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Stevens RB, Lane JT, Boerner BP, Miles CD, Rigley TH, Sandoz JP, et al. Single‐dose rabbit anti‐thymocyte globulin (rATG) induction reduces tubular injury after renal transplantation, resulting in superior renal function, serum Mg++ retention, and glucose regulation [abstract no: 1703]. American Journal of Transplantation 2010;10(Suppl 4):522. [EMBASE: 70465078] [Google Scholar]
  9. Stevens RB, Mercer D, Rigley T, Nielsen K, Henning M, Skorupa A, et al. Single‐dose induction with rabbit anti‐thymocyte globulin (rATG) safely improves renal allograft function and reduces chronic allograft nephropathy [abstract no: 538]. American Journal of Transplantation 2008;8(Suppl 2):322. [CENTRAL: CN‐00653788] [Google Scholar]
  10. Stevens RB, Mercer DF, Grant WJ, Freifeld AG, Lane JT, Groggel GC, et al. Randomized trial of single‐dose versus divided‐dose rabbit anti‐thymocyte globulin induction in renal transplantation: an interim report. Transplantation 2008;85(10):1391‐9. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Stevens RB, Rigley T, Skorupa J, Nielsen K, Wrenshall L. Successful calcineurin‐inhibitor (CI) discontinuation following early steroid withdrawal (ESW) in renal allograft recipients: reduced chronic allograft nephropathy (CAN) and improved renal function without increased rejection or graft loss [abstract no: 2123]. Transplantation 2008;86(2S):695. [Google Scholar]
  12. Stevens RB, Rigley TH, Nielsen KJ, Skorupa A, Sandoz J, Kellogg A, et al. Single‐dose induction with rabbit anti‐thymocyte globulin (rATG; 6 mg/kg over 24 hours) is safer and improves immediate and long‐term renal allograft function [abstract no: 616]. American Journal of Transplantation 2009;9(Suppl 2):369. [Google Scholar]
  13. Stevens RB, Rigley TH, Nielsen KJ, Skorupa JY, Skorupa A, Sandoz J, et al. Calcineurin‐inhibitor (CI) discontinuation following early steroid withdrawal (ESW) in renal allograft recipients without increase rejection or graft loss [abstract no: 1100]. American Journal of Transplantation 2009;9(Suppl 2):501. [Google Scholar]
  14. Stevens RB, Skorupa JY, Rigley TH, Sandoz JP, Kellogg A, Miller N, et al. Calcineurin‐inhibitor withdrawal vs minimization after kidney transplantation is safe but does not improve renal function; 5‐year results of a prospective, randomized trial [abstract no: 1643]. American Journal of Transplantation 2010;10(Suppl 4):505. [Google Scholar]
  15. Stevens RB, Wrenshall L, Mercer D, Rigley T, Nielsen K, Henning M, et al. Successful calcineurin‐inhibitor (CI) discontinuation following early steroid withdrawal (ESW) in renal allograft recipients; reduced chronic allograft nephropathy (CAN) and improved renal function without increased rejection or graft loss [abstract no: 289]. American Journal of Transplantation 2008;8(Suppl 2):255. [CENTRAL: CN‐00653790] [Google Scholar]

Taylor 1976 {published data only}

  1. Ackman CF, Taylor HE, Schual RS. Long‐term follow up of Canadian clinical trial of antilymphocyte globulin in renal transplantation [abstract]. Kidney International 1979;15(6):709. [CENTRAL: CN‐00444100] [Google Scholar]
  2. MacDonald AS, Belitsky P, Lannon SG, Cohen A, White J. Antithymocyte globulin in cadaver renal grafts: prophylaxis and antirejection therapy with three different preparations. Transplantation Proceedings 1982;14(4):631‐4. [MEDLINE: ] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Taylor HE, Ackman CF, Horowitz I. Canadian clinical trial of antilymphocyte globulin in human cadaver renal transplantation. Canadian Medical Association Journal 1976;115(12):1205‐8. [MEDLINE: ] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Thibaudin 1998 {published data only}

  1. Thibaudin D, Alamartine E, Filippis JP, Diab N, Laurent B, Berthoux F. Advantage of antithymocyte globulin induction in sensitized kidney recipients: a randomized prospective study comparing induction with and without antithymocyte globulin. Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation 1998;13(3):711‐5. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Thomas 1977 {published data only}

  1. Thomas F, Mendez‐Picon G, Thomas J, Peace K, Flora R, Lee HM. Effect of antilyphocyte‐globulin potency on survival of cadaver renal transplants. Prospective randomised double‐blind trial. Lancet 1977;2(8040):671‐4. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Thomas 2007 {published data only}

  1. Thomas PG, Woodside KJ, Lappin JA, Vaidya S, Rajaraman S, Gugliuzza KK. Alemtuzumab (Campath 1H) induction with tacrolimus monotherapy is safe for high immunological risk Renal transplantation. Transplantation 2007;83(11):1509‐12. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Toledo‐Pereyra 1985 {published data only}

  1. Toledo‐Pereyra LH, Bergren C, Mittal VK, Whitten JI, Baskin S, McNichol L. A prospective randomized comparison of antilymphoblast globulin versus antithymocyte globulin for cadaver kidney transplantation. Transplantation 1985;40(4):448‐50. [MEDLINE: ] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Toledo‐Pereyra LH, Bergren C, Whitten J. Comparison of ALG and ATG for renal transplantation [abstract]. Kidney International 1985;28(2):388. [CENTRAL: CN‐00583280] [Google Scholar]

TRIMS Study 2010 {published data only}

  1. Woodle ES, Peddi VR, Tomlanovich S, Mulgaonkar S, Kuo PC, TRIMS Study Investigators. A prospective, randomized, multicenter study evaluating early corticosteroid withdrawal with thymoglobulin in living‐donor kidney transplantation. Clinical Transplantation 2010;24(1):73‐83. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Woodle ES, TRIMS Study Group. A randomized, prospective, multicenter comparative study evaluating a thymoglobulin‐based early corticosteroid cessation regime in renal transplantation [abstract no: 673]. American Journal of Transplantation 2006;6(Suppl 2):294. [CENTRAL: CN‐00716028] [Google Scholar]
  3. Woodle ES, TRIMS Study Group. A randomized, prospective, multicenter study of thymoglobulin in renal transplantation for induction and minimization of steroids (TRIMS) [abstract no: 1632]. American Journal of Transplantation 2005;5(Suppl 11):571. [CENTRAL: CN‐00716027] [Google Scholar]

Tsai 2012 {published data only}

  1. Tsai MK, Lee CY, Yang CY, Yeh CC, Hu RH, Lee PH. Rituximab induction therapy provided additional immunosuppressive effect and functional benefit to non‐sensitized renal transplant recipients: an interim report [abstract no: 997]. American Journal of Transplantation 2012;12(Suppl S3):319. [EMBASE: 70746950] [Google Scholar]

Turcotte 1973 {published data only}

  1. Turcotte JG, Feduska NJ, Haines RF, Freier DT, Gikas PW, McDonald FD, et al. Antithymocyte globulin in renal transplant recipients. A clinical trial. Archives of Surgery 1973;106(4):484‐8. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Tyden 2009 {published data only}

  1. Tyden G, Genberg H, Tollemar J, Ekberg H, Persson NH, Tufveson G, et al. A randomized, doubleblind, placebo‐controlled, study of single‐dose rituximab as induction in renal transplantation. Transplantation 2009;87(9):1325‐9. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Tyden G, Mjornstedt L, Ekberg H, Tufveson G. A prospective, randomised, placebo controlled, multicenter study of the efficacy and safety of rituximab as induction therapy together with tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil and steroids in renal transplantation [abstract no: 861]. Transplantation 2008;86(2S):300. [CENTRAL: CN‐00763744] [Google Scholar]
  3. Tyden G, Mjornstedt L, Ekberg H, Tufveson G. Is rituximab safe to use in kidney transplant patients?. American Journal of Transplantation 2010;10(8):1949. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Tydén G, Ekberg H, Tufveson G, Mjörnstedt L. A randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled study of single dose rituximab as induction in renal transplantation: a 3‐year follow‐up. Transplantation. 2012;94(3):e21‐2. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

van den Hoogen 2013 {published data only}

  1. Hoogen MW, Kho MM, Abrahams AC, Zuilen AD, Sanders JS, Dijk M, et al. Effect of a single intraoperative high‐dose ATG‐Fresenius on delayed graft function in donation after cardiac‐death donor renal allograft recipients: a randomized study. Experimental & Clinical Transplantation 2013;11(2):134‐41. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Vela 1994 {published data only}

  1. Vela C, Cristol JP, Chong G, Okamba A, Lorho R, Mion C, et al. Antilymphocyte globulins versus OKT3 as prophylactic treatment in highly sensitized renal transplant recipients. Transplant International 1994;7 Suppl 1:S259‐62. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Vigeral 1986 {published data only}

  1. Vigeral P, Chkoff N, Chatenoud L, Campos H, Lacombe M, Droz D, et al. Prophylactic use of OKT3 monoclonal antibody in cadaver kidney recipients. Utilization of OKT3 as the sole immunosuppressive agent. Transplantation 1986;41(6):730‐3. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Wechter 1979 {published data only}

  1. Wechter WJ, Morrell RM, Bergan J, Rosenberg JC, Turcotte J, Schultz JR. Extended treatment with antithymocyte globulin (ATGAM) in renal allograft recipients. Transplantation 1979;28(5):365‐7. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Yussim 2000 {published data only}

  1. Yussim A, Shapira Z. Single‐bolus high‐dose ATG for prophylaxis of rejection in renal transplantation‐‐a prospective, randomized study. Transplant International 2000;13 Suppl 1:S293‐4. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

References to studies excluded from this review

Alloway 1993 {published data only}

  1. Alloway R, Kotb M, Hathaway D, Ohman M, Strain S, Gaber AO. The pharmacokinetic profile of standard and low‐dose OKT3 induction immunosuppression in renal transplant recipients. Transplantation 1994;58(2):249‐53. [MEDLINE: ] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Alloway R, Kotb M, Hathaway DK, Gaber LW, Vera SR, Gaber AO. Randomized double‐blind study of standard versus low‐dose OKT3 induction therapy in renal allograft recipients. American Journal of Kidney Diseases 1993;22(1):36‐43. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Alloway R, Kotb M, Hathaway DK, Gaber LW, Vera SR, Gaber AO. Results of a prospective, randomized double‐blind study comparing standard vs low‐dose OKT3 induction therapy. Transplantation Proceedings 1993;25(1 Pt 1):550‐2. [MEDLINE: ] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Chaballa M, Alloway RR, Kotb M, Hathaway DK, Gaber L, Vera SR, et al. Five year follow up of prospective, randomized double‐blind study comparing standard versus low dose OKT3 induction therapy in renal allograft recipients [abstract]. 16th Annual Meeting. American Society of Transplant Physicians (ASTP); 1997 May 10‐14; Chicago (ILL). 1997:259. [CENTRAL: CN‐00509127]

Kirsch 2006 {published data only}

  1. Kirsch BM, Haidinger M, Zeyda M, Bohmig GA, Tombinsky J, Muhlbacher F, et al. Alemtuzumab (Campath‐1H) induction therapy and dendritic cells: impact on peripheral dendritic cell repertoire in renal allograft recipients. Transplant Immunology 2006;16(3‐4):254‐7. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Kumar 2002b {published data only}

  1. Kumar A, Zaman W, Chaurasia D, Gupta A, Sharma RK, Gulati S. Prospective randomized trial to evaluate the efficacy of single low dose ATG induction in renal transplant recipient with spousal kidney. Indian Journal of Urology 2002;19(1):58‐62. [EMBASE: 36347895] [Google Scholar]

NCT00000936 {unpublished data only}

  1. Blechman‐Krom I. Controlled trial of induction therapy in renal transplantation. www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00000936 (accessed 3 November 2016).

NCT01312064 {unpublished data only}

  1. Tsai MK. Clinical outcome of de novo everolimus‐based immunosuppressive therapy for renal transplantation using rituximab induction. www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01312064 (accessed 22 August 2016).

References to studies awaiting assessment

NCT00089947 {published data only}

  1. NCT00089947. Randomized, prospective, phase 2 study comparing thymoglobulin in a rapid discontinuation of corticosteroids protocol with standard corticosteroid therapy in living donor renal transplantation using mycophenolate mofetil and tacrolimus maintenance therapy. clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00089947 (accessed 22 August 2016).

NCT00861536 {published data only}

  1. Steiger J. An open, multicenter, randomised, parallel group pilot study to investigate two different polyclonal rabbit immunoglobulin preparations for safety and efficacy: a comparison of ATG‐fresenius to thymoglobulin in prophylaxis for immunological high risk patients following renal transplantation. www.clinicaltrials gov/ct2/show/NCT00861536 (accessed 22 August 2016).

NCT01046955 {unpublished data only}

  1. Burke GW. Head‐to‐head comparison of thymoglobulin vs. campath‐1h vs. our standard center treatment protocol in living donor renal transplantation ‐ a study to evaluate the avoidance of long‐term nephrotoxic calcineurin inhibitor therapy. www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01046955 (accessed 3 November 2016).

NCT01354301 {unpublished data only}

  1. Tedesco H. Efficacy and safety of induction strategies combined with low tacrolimus exposure in kidney transplant recipients receiving everolimus or sodium mycophenolate. www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01354301 (accessed 3 November 2016).

Stevens 2016 {published data only}

  1. Stevens RB, Wrenshall LE, Miles CD, Farney AC, Jie T, Sandoz JP, et al. A double‐blind, double‐dummy, flexible‐design randomized multicenter trial: early safety of single‐ versus divided‐dose rabbit anti‐thymocyte globulin induction in renal transplantation. American Journal of Transplantation 2016;16(6):1858‐67. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

References to ongoing studies

NCT00733733 {published data only}

  1. Hoitsma AJ. A prospective, randomized, open, multicenter study to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of induction therapy with a single high‐dose anti‐t‐lymphocyte globulin (ATG) in renal transplant patients with a kidney from a non‐heart‐beating donor and tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil, and steroids as basic immunosuppression. www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00733733 (accessed 22 August 2016).

NCT01154387 {unpublished data only}

  1. Flechner S. A two part, phase 1/2, safety, PK and PD study of TOL101, an anti‐TCR monoclonal antibody for prophylaxis of acute organ rejection in patients receiving renal transplantation. www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01154387 (accessed 22 August 2016).

ReMIND Study 2013 {unpublished data only}

  1. Mamode M. A randomized trial of rituximab in induction therapy for living donor renal transplantation. www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01095172 (accessed 22 August 2016).

Additional references

ANZDATA 2009

  1. ANZDATA. [direct communication]. Australian and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant Registry 2009.

Calne 1999

  1. Calne R, Moffatt SD, Friend PJ, Jamieson NV, Bradley JA, Hale G, et al. Campath IH allows low‐dose cyclosporine monotherapy in 31 cadaveric renal allograft recipients. Transplantation 1999;68(10):613‐6. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Cibrik 2001

  1. Cibrik DM, Kaplan B, Meier‐Kriesche HU. Role of anti‐interleukin‐2 receptor antibodies in kidney transplantation. Biodrugs 2001;15(10):655‐66. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Denton 1999

  1. Denton MD, Magee CC, Sayegh MH. Immunosuppressive strategies in transplantation. Lancet 1999;353(9158):1083‐91. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

GRADE 2008

  1. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck‐Ytter Y, Alonso‐Coello P, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2008;336(7650):924‐6. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Higgins 2003

  1. Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta‐analyses. BMJ 2003;327(7414):557‐60. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Higgins 2011

  1. Higgins JP, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated February 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane‐handbook.org.

Hong 2000

  1. Hong JC, Kahan BD. Sirolimus‐induced thrombocytopenia and leukopenia in renal transplant recipients: risk factors, incidence, progression, and management. Transplantation 2000;69(10):2085‐90. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

KDIGO 2009

  1. Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Transplant Work Group. KDIGO clinical practice guideline for the care of kidney transplant recipients. American Journal of Transplantation 2009;9 Suppl 3:S1‐155. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Kreis 1992

  1. Kreis H. Antilymphocyte globulins in kidney transplantation. Kidney International ‐ Supplement 1992;38:188‐92. [MEDLINE: ] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Meier‐Kriesche 2004

  1. Meier‐Kriesche HU, Schold JD, Srinivas TR, Kaplan B. Lack of improvement in renal allograft survival despite a marked decrease in acute rejection rates over the most recent era. American Journal of Transplantation 2004;4(3):378‐83. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Racusen 1999

  1. Racusen LC, Solez K, Colvin RB, Bonsib SM, Castro MC, Cavallo T, et al. The Banff 97 working classification of renal allograft pathology. Kidney international 1999;55(2):713‐23. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Schünemann 2011a

  1. Schünemann HJ, Oxman AD, Higgins JP, Vist GE, Glasziou P, Guyatt GH. Chapter 11: Presenting results and 'Summary of findings' tables. In: Higgins JP, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane‐handbook.org.

Schünemann 2011b

  1. Schünemann HJ, Oxman AD, Higgins JP, Deeks JJ, Glasziou P, Guyatt GH. Chapter 12: Interpreting results and drawing conclusions. In: Higgins JP, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane‐handbook.org.

Solez 2007

  1. Solez K, Colvin RB, Racusen LC, Sis B, Halloran PF, Birk PE, et al. Banff '05 Meeting Report: differential diagnosis of chronic allograft injury and elimination of chronic allograft nephropathy ('CAN'). American Journal of Transplantation 2007; Vol. 7, issue 3:518‐26. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed]

Soulillou 2001

  1. Soulillou JP, Giral M. Controlling the incidence of infection and malignancy by modifying immunosuppression. Transplantation 2001;72(12 Suppl):S89‐93. [MEDLINE: ] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Tonelli 2011

  1. Tonelli M, Wiebe N, Knoll G, Bello A, Browne S, Jadhav D, et al. Systematic review: kidney transplantation compared with dialysis in clinically relevant outcomes. American Journal of Transplantation 2011;11(10):2093‐109. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Tyden 2003

  1. Tyden G, Kumlien G, Fehrman I. Successful ABO‐incompatible kidney transplantations without splenectomy using antigen specific immunoadsorption and rituximab. Transplantation 2003;76(4):730‐1. [MEDLINE: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

UNOS 2011

  1. United Network for Organ Sharing. OPTN data [direct communication]. www.unos.org (accessed 4 November 2016).

Webster 2006

  1. Webster A, Pankhurst T, Rinaldi F, Chapman JR, Craig JC. Polyclonal and monoclonal antibodies for treating acute rejection episodes in kidney transplant recipients. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2006, Issue 2. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004756.pub3] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Webster 2010

  1. Webster AC, Ruster LP, McGee R, Matheson SL, Higgins GY, Willis NS, et al. Interleukin 2 receptor antagonists for kidney transplant recipients. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2010, Issue 1. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003897.pub3] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Zand 2007

  1. Zand MS. Therapeutic antibody agents for B‐cell immunomodulation in renal transplantation. Transplantation 2007;84(11 S Suppl):S11‐9. [EMBASE: 350294707] [Google Scholar]

References to other published versions of this review

Morgan 2004

  1. Morgan P, Cross NB, Barnett AN, Craig JC, Webster AC. Polyclonal and monoclonal antibodies for induction therapy in kidney transplant recipients. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2004, Issue 2. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004759] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES