Skip to main content
. 2010 Jan 20;2010(1):CD003897. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003897.pub3

ter Meulen 2002.

Methods
  • Multicentre RCT

  • Duration: October 1999 to March 2002

  • Stratified by centre

Participants
  • Country: The Netherlands

  • First (89%) or subsequent, cadaveric (64%) or living donor kidney transplant

  • Median age (range)

    • Treatment group: 48 (18‐78)

    • Control group: 49 (19‐73)

  • Number (treatment/control): 381 enrolled, 364 analysed (86/178)

  • Sex (% male)

    • Treatment group: 72%

    • Control group: 57%

  • Exclusions: HLA‐identical living donor; taking immunosuppressive medication; haemolytic uraemic syndrome; premenopausal women not taking adequate contraception; leukocytopenia or thrombocytopenia

Interventions Treatment group
  • Daclizumab: 1 mg/kg days 0 and 14


Control group
  • Steroids: 0.3 mg/kg/d for first 2 weeks then dose tapered to zero in 4 months


Baseline immunosuppression
  • TAC: 0.3 mg/d and adjust to trough levels 15‐20 ng/mL (days 0‐14), 10‐15 ng/mL (weeks 3‐6) and 5‐10 ng/mL after week 7

  • MMF: 2 g/d for 2 weeks then reduced to 1.5 g/d

  • Steroids: All patients received 100 mg IV for first 3 days

Outcomes
  • Mortality

  • Graft loss

  • Acute rejection

  • Delayed Graft Function

  • Infection

  • Malignancy

  • Adverse reaction

Notes
  • 12 months follow‐up

Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk Stated "randomly assigned" but no further information provided
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Low risk “randomisation was carried out by opening a sealed opaque envelope with the lowest available study number at each participating centre”
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) 
 Objective outcomes High risk “both clinicians and patients were aware of the randomised assignment”, blinding of outcome assessors not stated
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) 
 Subjective outcomes High risk “both clinicians and patients were aware of the randomised assignment”, blinding of outcome assessors not stated
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Yes, ITT analysis reported, all patients followed up or accounted for (3 patients lost to follow up at 12 months)
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk Primary outcomes for this review (death, graft loss and acute rejection) were reported
Other bias High risk Supported by grants from Roche Pharmaceuticals, Mijdrecht, and Fujisawa, Houten