{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.034788782392616256, 'fraction_numerical': 0.027334043308484202, 'mean_word_length': 5.36117381489842, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Polyclonal and monoclonal antibodies for treating acute rejection episodes in kidney transplant recipients.

BACKGROUND
Registry data shows that between 15-35% kidney recipients will undergo treatment for at least one episode of acute rejection within the first post transplant year. Treatment options include pulsed steroid therapy, the use of an antibody preparation, the alteration of background immunosuppression, or combinations of these options. In 2002, in the US, 61.4% patients with an acute rejection episode received steroids, 20.4% received an antibody preparation and 18.2% received both.


OBJECTIVES
To determine the benefits and harms of mono- or polyclonal antibodies (Ab) used to treat acute rejection in kidney transplant recipients.


SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (in The Cochrane Library, issue 2, 2005), MEDLINE (1966-June 2005), EMBASE (1980-June 2005), and the specialised register of the Cochrane Renal Group (June 2005).


SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in all languages comparing all mono- and polyclonal antibody preparations, given in combination with any other immunosuppressive agents, for the treatment of acute graft rejection, when compared to any other treatment for acute rejection.


DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two reviewers independently assessed trials for eligibility and quality, and extracted data. Results are expressed as relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).


MAIN RESULTS
Twenty one trials (49 reports, 1387 patients) were identified. Trials were generally small, incompletely reported, especially for potential harms, and did not define outcome measures adequately. Fourteen trials (965 patients) compared therapies for first rejection episodes. Ab was better than steroid in reversing rejection (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.87) and preventing graft loss (death censored RR 0.74, CI 0.58 to 0.95) but there was no difference in preventing subsequent rejection or death at one year. Seven trials (422 patients) investigated Ab treatment of steroid-resistant rejection. There was no benefit of muromonab-CD3 over ATG or ALG in either reversing rejection, preventing subsequent rejection, preventing graft loss or death.


AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In reversing first rejection, any antibody is better than steroid and also prevents graft loss, but subsequent rejection and patient survival are not significantly different. In reversing steroid-resistant rejection the effects of different antibodies are also not significantly different. Given the clinical problem caused by acute rejection, data are very sparse, and clinically important differences in outcomes between widely used interventions have not been excluded. Standardised reproducible outcome criteria are needed.