Open-label, Randomised Multicentre Study of CAMPATH-1H Versus Basiliximab Induction Treatment and Sirolimus Versus Tacrolimus Maintenance Treatment for the Preservation of Renal Function in Patients Receiving Kidney Transplants
Phase: PHASE2
Conditions: Kidney Transplantation
Sponsor: University of Oxford

EudraCT 2008-008553-27 
Sponsor: University of Oxford, UK 
3C_Protocol_V5.0_19122011.doc 
1 
 
Open-label, randomised multicentre study of CAMPATH-1H versus basiliximab 
induction treatment and sirolimus versus tacrolimus maintenance treatment for the 
preservation of renal function in patients receiving kidney transplants 
 
CAMPATH, Calcineurin inhibitor reduction and Chronic allograft nephropathy  
(the 3C Study) 
 
Internal reference: CTSU3C1 
Ethics reference: 09/H0408/101 
EudraCT: 2008-008553-27 
Date: 19 December 2011  
Version number: V5.0 
 
 
Chief Investigator:  
 
Professor Peter Friend 
 
 
 
 
 
Nuffield Department of Surgery 
 
 
 
 
 
John Radcliffe Hospital 
 
 
 
 
 
Oxford OX3 9DU 
 
Co-principal investigators: 
Professor Colin Baigent 
 
 
 
 
 
Dr Martin Landray 
 
 
 
 
 
Dr Paul Harden 
 
 
 
 
 
Dr Richard Haynes 
 
Sponsor: 
 
 
 
University of Oxford 
 
 

EudraCT 2008-008553-27 
Sponsor: University of Oxford, UK 
 
3C_Protocol_V5.0_19122011.doc 
2 
CAMPATH, Calcineurin Inhibitor Reduction and  
Chronic Allograft Nephropathy 
(The 3C study) 
 
 
DOES CAMPATH INDUCTION ALLOW REDUCED EXPOSURE TO CALCINEURIN INHIBITORS? 
 
The major challenge facing the kidney transplantation community at present is improving the long-term 
survival of grafts. Although there has been significant progress in reducing acute rejection in the last 
decade, there has been no concomitant increase in the long-term survival of kidney transplants. 
 
The use of calcineurin inhibitors (CNIs; ciclosporin and tacrolimus) has improved acute rejection rates, 
but also probably contributed significantly to chronic allograft nephropathy (the commonest cause of 
late graft loss). Efforts have been made to reduce exposure to these agents, but these are often 
hampered by an increased incidence of acute and chronic rejection. CAMPATH (Alemtuzumab) is a 
powerful induction agent which might reduce the requirement for calcineurin inhibitors.  
 
DOES DELAYED CONVERSION TO SIROLIMUS ALLOW COMPLETE WITHDRAWAL OF 
CALCINEURIN INHIBITORS? 
 
Sirolimus is a novel immunosuppressant that acts via a separate pathway to calcineurin inhibitors and 
is not nephrotoxic. There is evidence that using sirolimus to reduce calcineurin inhibitor exposure may 
improve graft function, but using sirolimus from the time of transplantation is poorly tolerated and 
associated with an increased acute rejection rate. Potentially, converting to sirolimus after six months 
could allow calcineurin inhibitors to be avoided in the long-term, but without the peri-operative side-
effects of sirolimus. 
  
A further advantage of the combination of CAMPATH and sirolimus is a possible tolerogenic effect. 
The combination may induce ‘prope’ (almost) tolerance, whereas calcineurin inhibitors are known to 
interfere with this.  
 
TWO RANDOMISATIONS PROVIDES AN EFFICIENT METHOD OF ANSWERING TWO 
IMPORTANT QUESTIONS 
 
Patients will be randomly allocated to receive either CAMPATH or ‘standard’ induction with basiliximab 
(an interleukin 2 receptor antagonist) at the time of their transplant surgery. All patients will then 
receive tacrolimus and mycophenolate, and those assigned to basiliximab will also receive a reducing 
course of corticosteroids, which can be withdrawn at the local investigator’s discretion. These two 
groups can then be compared to investigate the benefit of CAMPATH induction. 
 
Six months after transplantation, patients will be randomly allocated, irrespective of their induction 
therapy allocation, to either remain on tacrolimus-based maintenance therapy for the duration of the 
study, or switch to a sirolimus-based regimen. Comparison of patients in these two groups will test the 
hypothesis that sirolimus-based maintenance therapy preserves graft function better than CNI-based 
therapy. 

EudraCT 2008-008553-27 
Sponsor: University of Oxford, UK 
 
3C_Protocol_V5.0_19122011.doc 
3 
TABLET OF CONTENTS 
 
1 
BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE 
5 
1.1 
No improvement in long-term graft outcomes in the last decade ....................... 5 
1.2 
Chronic allograft nephropathy is the major cause of late graft failure ................ 5 
1.3 
Sirolimus can be used to reduce calcineurin inhibitor exposure ........................ 6 
1.4 
CAMPATH is a novel induction agent with potential benefit .............................. 7 
1.4.1 
Clinical experience in kidney transplantation with CAMPATH 
8 
1.4.2 
Safety concerns with CAMPATH 
9 
1.5 
The combination of CAMPATH and sirolimus may induce prope tolerance ...... 9 
1.6 
The benefit of a short initial period of calcineurin inhibitor ............................... 10 
1.7 
Two randomisations provides an efficient method of answering two important questions
 
11 
2 
PLAN OF INVESTIGATION 
12 
2.1 
STUDY AIMS ................................................................................................. 12 
2.2 
TREATMENT COMPARISONS ...................................................................... 12 
2.2.1 
CAMPATH-  vs basiliximab-based induction 
12 
2.2.2 
Tacrolimus- vs sirolimus-based maintenance therapy 
12 
2.3 
ASSESSMENT OF OUTCOMES .................................................................... 14 
2.3.1 
Comparison of induction therapies 
14 
2.3.2 
Comparison of maintenance therapies 
15 
2.3.3 
Safety analysis at one year 
15 
2.3.4 
Health Economic analysis 
15 
2.4 
DURATION AND DEFINITION OF END OF STUDY ...................................... 16 
2.5 
SAMPLE SIZE CALCULATIONS .................................................................... 16 
2.6 
DATA AND SAFETY MONITORING............................................................... 17 
2.6.1 
Interim analyses: role of the Data Monitoring Committee and Steering Committee 
17 
2.7 
CENTRAL COORDINATION OF LOCAL CLINICAL CENTRES (HOSPITAL CLINICS) 17 
2.7.1 
Overview of study organisation 
17 
2.7.2 
Training and monitoring 
17 
2.7.3 
Supply of study materials 
18 
2.7.4 
Data management 
18 
2.7.5 
Laboratory measurement of samples 
18 
2.7.6 
Source documents and archiving 
18 
2.7.7 
Funding 
18 
2.7.8 
Indemnity 
18 
2.7.9 
Publications, reports and substudies 
19 
3 
SUMMARY OF PRACTICAL PROCEDURES 
20 
3.1 
ELIGIBILITY FOR THE 3C STUDY ................................................................ 21 
3.1.1 
Identification of potentially eligible patients 
21 
3.2 
FIRST RANDOMISATION VISIT .................................................................... 21 
3.2.1 
Assessment of relevant medical history and eligibility 
21 
3.2.2 
Invitation to participate in the randomised study and patient consent 
22 
3.2.3 
Completion of case report form 
22 
3.2.4 
Random allocation of study treatment 
22 
3.2.5 
Reducing dose of CAMPATH in elderly 
22 
3.2.6 
Informing patient’s GP 
22 
3.3 
DISCHARGE VISIT ........................................................................................ 23 
3.3.1 
Further details of medical history and transplant 
23 
3.3.2 
Adverse events 
23 
3.3.3 
Discharge medication 
23 
3.3.4 
Clinical measurements 
23 
3.3.5 
Laboratory results 
23 
3.3.6 
Health economic evaluation 
23 

EudraCT 2008-008553-27 
Sponsor: University of Oxford, UK 
 
3C_Protocol_V5.0_19122011.doc 
4 
3.4 
FOLLOW-UP VISITS (at months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12) ......................................... 23 
3.4.1 
Adverse events 
23 
3.4.2 
Current medication and clinical measurements 
24 
3.4.3 
Blood results 
24 
3.4.4 
Health economic evaluation 
24 
3.4.5 
Steroid withdrawal in basiliximab-allocated patients 
24 
3.5 
SECOND RANDOMISATION (at ~6 months) ................................................. 24 
3.5.1 
Management of patients who do not enter maintenance therapy randomisation 
25 
3.6 
FOLLOW-UP AFTER ONE YEAR AFTER TRANSPLANTATION ................... 25 
3.6.1 
Serious adverse events 
25 
3.6.2 
Laboratory results 
25 
3.6.3 
Mailed questionnaires 
25 
3.7 
FOLLOW-UP AT REFERRING HOSPITALS .................................................. 25 
3.8 
DISCONTINUATION OF STUDY TREATMENT ............................................. 25 
3.9 
WITHDRAWAL FROM STUDY ....................................................................... 26 
3.10 REPORTING ADVERSE EVENTS ................................................................. 26 
3.10.1 
Non-serious adverse events 
26 
3.10.2 
Serious adverse events 
26 
3.10.3 
Immediate reporting of any serious adverse event believed to be due to study treatment 
27 
3.10.4 
Expected study treatment related adverse events 
27 
3.11 Out-of-hours assistance.................................................................................. 28 
3.12 CONFIRMATION AND VERIFICATION OF STUDY OUTCOMES ................. 28 
3.12.1 
Confirmation of all deaths and relevant non-fatal serious adverse events 
28 
3.12.2 
Central verification of study outcomes 
28 
3.13 STUDY TREATMENTS .................................................................................. 28 
3.13.1 
Supply of study treatments 
28 
3.13.2 
Labelling of study treatments 
29 
3.13.3 
Storage of study treatments 
29 
3.13.4 
Modification of dose of study treatments 
29 
3.13.5 
Accountability of study IMPs 
29 
4 
APPENDICES 
30 
4.1 
Appendix 1: Definitions ................................................................................... 30 
4.2 
Appendix 2: Detailed treatment schedules ...................................................... 31 
4.2.1 
Induction treatments: 
31 
4.2.2 
Maintenance treatments 
33 
4.2.3 
Living donor transplant recipients 
34 
4.2.4 
Concomitant medications 
34 
4.3 
Appendix 3: Transplant management ............................................................. 34 
4.3.1 
Clinical management decisions 
34 
4.4 
Appendix 4: Study personnel .......................................................................... 36 
4.5 
Appendix 5: Organisational structure and responsibilities ............................... 37 
4.6 
Appendix 6: Schedule of study procedures ..................................................... 39 
4.7 
Appendix 7: Specimen label for CAMPATH .................................................... 40 
4.8 
Appendix 8: Guidelines for administration of CAMPATH................................. 40 
4.8.1 
Intravenous administration 
40 
4.8.2 
Subcutaneous administration 
42 
4.9 
Appendix 9: Mycophenolate dosing ................................................................ 42 
4.10 Appendix 10: References ............................................................................... 42 
 

EudraCT 2008-008553-27 
Sponsor: University of Oxford, UK 
 
3C_Protocol_V5.0_19122011.doc 
5 
1 BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE 
1.1 
No improvement in long-term graft outcomes in the last decade 
 
Kidney transplantation is well established as the best treatment modality for patients with end-stage 
renal failure (1). Despite significant advances in short-term graft survival over the past two decades, 
these have not been matched by improved long-term graft survival (Figure 1) (2). Long-term graft 
survival has many implications both for individual patients (who generally enjoy a better quality of life 
than when on dialysis) and for health care providers (after the initial cost surrounding the operation, 
the cost of maintaining a graft is less than that of dialysis). One-year graft survival rates are now over 
90%, so there is considerable interest in strategies that can maximise the life-span of renal 
transplants. 
 
Figure 1. Kaplan-Meier overall graft survival, by year of transplant, for first cadaveric 
transplants 1988-1995. 
1.2 
Chronic allograft nephropathy is the major cause of late graft failure 
 
There are many potential causes of late graft failure, the most common of which is chronic allograft 
nephropathy (CAN) (3). This is believed to be the end-result of graft damage of a wide variety of types, 
including preservation damage, rejection, calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) toxicity, hypertensive vascular 
disease and viral infection. Functional studies significantly underestimate the incidence of histological 
graft injury, and one study found that 94% of grafts had histological evidence of CAN at one year (4). 
This same study concluded that much of the chronic damage is due to calcineurin inhibitor toxicity 

EudraCT 2008-008553-27 
Sponsor: University of Oxford, UK 
 
3C_Protocol_V5.0_19122011.doc 
6 
(Figure 2), even though the levels of these drugs had been maintained within the target range. For this 
reason many recent studies have focussed on reducing exposure to calcineurin inhibitors, and these 
have generally shown that this strategy produces better long-term outcomes (e.g. one year graft 
function) (5).  
 
Figure 2. The prevalence of calcineurin inhibitor toxicity in a biopsy-based study of chronic allograft 
nephropathy in 120 kidney-pancreas transplant recipients. 52 biopsy specimens were analysed at 5 
years, and 16 specimens at 10 years.  
1.3 
Sirolimus can be used to reduce calcineurin inhibitor exposure 
 
Sirolimus is a macrocyclic lactone, and has a different mechanism of action to CNIs. It reduces cellular 
proliferation via the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) pathway. It is not nephrotoxic, which is a 
major potential advantage over CNIs.  
 
Sirolimus has been used in a number of different immunosuppressant strategies. It can replace either 
the CNI (6) or antimetabolite (7) (i.e. azathioprine or mycophenolate) in standard ‘triple therapy’, or it 
can be given with  a reduced CNI dose (8). 
 
A recent meta-analysis of the use of sirolimus analysed 27 randomised trials involving sirolimus in any 
of the above strategies (as well as high-dose versus low-dose sirolimus) (9). Eight trials including 750 
participants evaluated sirolimus versus CNI. These trials varied in length from 3 months to 2 years, 
and used different outcome measures for graft function (serum creatinine or estimated glomerular 
filtration rate [eGFR]). The overall results suggested that allocation to sirolimus therapy was 
associated with improved graft function as compared to CNI (ciclosporin in six trials, tacrolimus in two 
trials). Those that used serum creatinine as the primary measure of graft function (four out of eight 
trials) reported a weighted mean difference of -18.31 µmol/L (95% confidence interval, -30.96 to -5.67) 
(i.e. 18 µmol lower in the sirolimus group). Those that used eGFR as the primary measure of graft 

EudraCT 2008-008553-27 
Sponsor: University of Oxford, UK 
 
3C_Protocol_V5.0_19122011.doc 
7 
function (three out of eight trials) reported an improvement of 14.94 mL/min (95% CI, 9.33-20.55) in 
the sirolimus group. The mean length of follow-up in these trials was one year. 
 
There was no difference in acute rejection rates, graft loss or mortality, although the trials were not 
powered to examine this. However, the analysis is complicated by a significantly greater incidence of 
changing patients from the protocol treatment in the sirolimus group (to standard CNI-based therapy) 
(relative risk versus control arm 1.82 [95% CI, 1.09 – 3.03, p=0.04]). Therefore the observed 
difference between allocation to sirolimus and CNI may be an underestimate of the true effect, 
although publication bias would operate in the opposite direction (i.e. the observed effect is partially 
attributable to the publication of trials with positive – and not negative – results). 
 
Since the publication of this meta-analysis, two further studies have presented their results. Firstly, the 
Spare-the-Nephron study compared elective conversion to a sirolimus/mycophenolate based regimen 
with continued calcineurin inhibitor/mycophenolate based maintenance immunosuppression (10). 305 
patients were randomised at a mean interval of 117 days after transplantation. Conversion to sirolimus 
was associated with a 7.4% improvement in calculated GFR (compared to a 1.3% improvement in the 
group assigned to remain on CNI/MMF; p=0.027). Secondly, the CONCEPT study randomised 192 
kidney transplant recipients between remaining on ciclosporin-based regimen or switching to a 
sirolimus-based regimen at three months after transplantation. The patients allocated to sirolimus had 
better graft function at one year compared to the ciclosporin-allocated group (eGFR 68.9 versus 64.4 
mL/min, p=0.017) with no significant excess of acute rejection (11). 
 
Like all immunosuppressants, sirolimus has well-recognised side effects. These include 
hyperlipidaemia (both triglycerides and cholesterol, although the cholesterol fractions have not been 
reported)  - this is easily managed but requires a higher rate of treatment with statins (9). 
Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection was not increased in patients allocated to sirolimus therapy, but 
other infectious complications were not reported in the meta-analysis. Overall, about one quarter of 
patients allocated sirolimus discontinue it (12). 
  
1.4 
CAMPATH is a novel induction agent with potential benefit 
 
The Campath-1 (Cambridge Pathology) series of rat monoclonal antibodies was first produced in the 
early 1980s in the Department of Pathology at the University of Cambridge, UK. The humanised 
variant of this antibody (Campath-1H - CAMPATH) was expressed in a rat myeloma cell line at 
Cambridge, and later in Chinese hamster ovary cells at the Wellcome Research Laboratories (13). 
Clinical investigations of CAMPATH have been conducted in patients receiving solid organ 
transplantation and in patients with haematological malignancies (14), autoimmune diseases such as 
rheumatoid arthritis (15), and multiple sclerosis (16). 
 
The Campath-1 antigen (CD52) is an abundant molecule (approximately 5 x 105 antibody binding site 
per cell) that is present on at least 95% of all human peripheral blood lymphocytes and 
monocytes/macrophages (17). Although antibodies against CD52 are highly effective in depleting 
lymphocytes by complement and antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity (ADCC), this does not 
appear to be the case for monocytes/macrophages.  The antigen has been found on a subpopulation 
(<5%) of granulocytes but not on human erythrocytes, platelets or bone marrow stem cells.  As a 
consequence, the therapeutic use of antibodies against CD52 does not compromise normal 
haematopoiesis. 
 

EudraCT 2008-008553-27 
Sponsor: University of Oxford, UK 
 
3C_Protocol_V5.0_19122011.doc 
8 
Treatment with CAMPATH rapidly and almost totally depletes the peripheral lymphocyte population. 
Although B-cells start to re-populate after three months, the T-cell population remains severely 
depressed for up to 18-24 months (18). 
1.4.1 Clinical experience in kidney transplantation with CAMPATH 
 
CAMPATH was first studied in kidney transplantation as a potential treatment for acute rejection. In a 
small non-randomised pilot study of 12 patients, it was very effective but associated with severe 
infective episodes (19). The dosage was revised from seven daily 10mg doses to five daily 6mg 
doses, and no further severe infections occurred in the five patients who received the less potent 
regimen. 
 
It has since been used as induction therapy in many centres. A group from Addenbrooke’s Hospital, 
Cambridge, UK have recently reported a five year follow-up of patients treated with CAMPATH 
induction therapy (20). This retrospective comparison of 33 patients treated with CAMPATH and 66 
contemporaneous controls showed no significant differences in graft function, graft loss or adverse 
events (i.e. infections and malignancy) between the two groups. However, the CAMPATH-treated 
patients received minimal steroids, half-level ciclosporin and no antimetabolite drugs. 
 
CAMPATH is now widely used, and over 1500 transplants in the USA received CAMPATH induction in 
the two years 2003 and 2004 (21, 22). A multivariate retrospective analysis of the UNOS/OPTN 
(United Network for Organ Sharing/Organ Procurement Transplantation Network) database compared 
the effect of different induction therapies (IL-2 receptor antagonists, Thymoglobulin and CAMPATH) 
on the incidence of acute rejection in the first year post-transplant. In deceased donor transplants, the 
relative risk compared to CAMPATH induction of acute rejection was 1.51 (p=0.001) for no induction, 
1.30 (p=0.04) for IL-2 receptor antagonist induction and 1.00 (p=1.0) for Thymoglobulin induction (21). 
These differences did not translate into a difference in graft survival or function in this analysis 
however. 
 
There have only been four small randomised clinical trials involving CAMPATH. In a multicentre 
controlled study in Asia (23), 20 patients were randomly allocated to receive CAMPATH  induction 
(two 20mg doses on days 0 and 1) followed by low-dose ciclosporin monotherapy, and 10 received no 
induction and full dose ciclosporin, azathioprine and steroids. After six months there was no difference 
in graft and patient survival, serum creatinine or acute rejection rates between the two groups. 
 
The second randomised clinical trial was a three arm trial, with 30 patients in each arm, which was 
designed to compare three different induction agents (Thymoglobulin, CAMPATH and daclizumab) 
(24). All patients received maintenance immunosuppression with tacrolimus, mycophenolate and 
steroids, but the CAMPATH arm received half-dose tacrolimus, and no steroids after one week. An 
interim analysis (after a median follow-up of fifteen months) showed no difference in patient or graft 
survival, acute rejection rates or graft function. 
 
In another recent study of 21 high risk (panel reactive antibody >20% or re-transplant) transplant 
recipients, CAMPATH induction followed by tacrolimus monotherapy was compared to Thymoglobulin 
induction followed by tacrolimus, MMF and steroids (25). The participants were followed for a median 
of 377 days, and no differences in graft function or survival were detected, although the study was not 
powered sufficiently to do so. 
 
The most recently published study compared CAMPATH induction followed by tacrolimus 
monotherapy with standard triple therapy (tacrolimus, mycophenolate and steroids, notably without 
induction) in 131 patients (26). The primary outcome was biopsy proven acute rejection at six months, 

EudraCT 2008-008553-27 
Sponsor: University of Oxford, UK 
 
3C_Protocol_V5.0_19122011.doc 
9 
and secondary outcomes included graft function at one year. No statistically significant differences 
were detected in either outcome, although the overall safety profile was similar. 
 
All the aforementioned prospective studies were unable to detect plausibly moderate differences, 
either because they were non-randomised, too small, or both. Many commentators have 
acknowledged that a large study of CAMPATH is required (27). 
1.4.2 Safety concerns with CAMPATH 
 
Particularly in view of the early experience with CAMPATH when it was first used to treat rejection 
(19),  there was  concern about its  potential risks of infection and malignancy when it was introduced 
as an induction agent. However, the published data so far have been reassuring on both these issues.  
 
A group from Pittsburgh, USA, have examined 449 consecutive cases who received CAMPATH 
induction prior to solid organ transplantation (195 patients received a kidney transplant) (28). They 
assessed the type of bloodstream infections found in patients who had received CAMPATH, and 
compared it to bloodstream infections typically seen in other CD4 T-cell depleted states such as the 
acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS). They did not find a single case of an infection typical of 
CD4 T-cell depletion in those patients who had received CAMPATH. 
 
A retrospective review of 49 patients treated with CAMPATH and 56 historical controls, (27 of whom 
had received basiliximab induction)  reported no infection-related deaths among CAMPATH-treated 
patients, and, in fact, the CAMPATH treated group had a lower rate of infectious complications (16% 
versus 32%, p=0.061) (29). 
 
Retrospective studies have also failed to find an increased risk of malignancy. Post-transplant 
lymphoproliferative disorder (PTLD) is a particular concern because it is virally-driven. However, a 
review of the OPTN database of 46,690 kidney transplant recipients actually showed that CAMPATH 
was associated with the lowest incidence of PTLD among the induction agents that had been used 
(30). It has been suggested that this may be because CAMPATH also depletes B-lymphocytes, from 
which PTLD develops. 
 
There are no other data to suggest an increased risk of other malignancies following CAMPATH 
induction, although as it has only entered widespread use recently the length of follow-up is relatively 
short. 
 
1.5 
The combination of CAMPATH and sirolimus may induce prope tolerance 
 
The combination of CAMPATH and sirolimus may enable exposure to CNIs to be reduced or 
eliminated. This could be favourable because CNIs are nephrotoxic and may interfere with 
tolerogenesis (31).   
 
It is known that ischaemia-reperfusion injury occurring during organ implantation enhances the 
activation of the immune system (32). Depleting induction agents profoundly reduce the number of 
circulating lymphocytes capable of mounting an immune response during this period. It has been 
suggested that, by the time the peripheral lymphocytes return, the graft may have recovered from the 
injury and will therefore be immunologically quiescent (33). 
 

EudraCT 2008-008553-27 
Sponsor: University of Oxford, UK 
 
3C_Protocol_V5.0_19122011.doc 
10 
An attempt to induce tolerance using CAMPATH alone was not successful (34),  probably due to the 
persistence of monocyte/macrophages, NK cells and memory cells (which CAMPATH does not 
effectively deplete). However, studies examining the use of CAMPATH followed by monotherapy 
(either tacrolimus (35) or sirolimus (36)) have had encouraging results, consistent with (but not yet 
proving) the concept of donor-specific hyporesponsiveness suggested by Calne when he proposed 
the term  prope  (almost) tolerance (37). 
 
Sirolimus also is potentially tolerogenic; it increases the number of CD4+ cells with regulatory activity 
(Treg cells) (38). Treg cells dampen the effector response to antigenic challenge and are a critical 
element of peripheral tolerance. Furthermore, in addition to its effects on tolerance-promoting Treg 
cells, sirolimus facilitates the deletion of effector alloreactive T cells (39). 
 
Sirolimus also has potentially favourable effects on antigen-presenting cells. Semi-mature dendritic 
cells continuously transport and present self-antigen in T cell areas of lymphoid tissue, and they 
induce Treg cell formation by mechanisms distinct from those mentioned above. By up-regulating 
chemokine receptors on their surface, sirolimus has a pro-migratory effect on these cells which 
translates into increased Treg function (40). 
 
In combination, CAMPATH and sirolimus have been demonstrated to induce donor-specific 
hyporesponsiveness, as assessed by in vitro  tests (41). This is obviously encouraging, and merits 
further investigation. 
1.6 
The benefit of a short initial period of calcineurin inhibitor 
 
Sirolimus exerts its immunosuppressive effect by interfering with cell replication. This leads to 
unwanted effects in the immediate post-operative period. Wound healing is delayed by sirolimus, and 
lymphocoeles are more frequent than with CNI-based immunosuppression (9). These problems can 
be avoided by using a CNI in this period, and then switching to sirolimus, at a later stage before the 
deleterious effects of CNI-based therapies become established. 
 
Another reason to follow CAMPATH induction with CNI-based maintenance therapy for at least a short 
period is the atypical pattern of acute rejection seen with CAMPATH induction. Rejection episodes 
occur later than is normal with conventional immunosuppression, and the predominantly 
monocyte/macrophage infiltrate differs to that normally observed. Although cellular rejection following 
CAMPATH induction is easily reversible with steroids, humoral rejection is more frequent if CAMPATH 
is followed immediately by sirolimus: this has led the group pioneering this approach to recommend a 
short period of CNI treatment (36). 
 
Low-dose tacrolimus has recently been established to be the optimal therapy following interleukin 2 
receptor antagonist induction (5) and has also been used with considerable success following 
CAMPATH induction. In a 30 patient pilot study in Oxford of the protocol proposed for the 
experimental arm of this trial, one year death-censored graft survival was 100% and mean eGFR was 
60 mL/min. There were two deaths: one was due to a perioperative myocardial infarction at the time of 
transplant, and the other was due to refractory PTLD. The one year acute rejection rate was 7.1%, 
with all rejection episodes occurring in the first six months. The initial protocol planned to withdraw 
MMF at one year, but following three episodes of acute rejection after MMF withdrawal, the protocol 
was altered to continue MMF at 250mg bd after one year. Since that change, there have been no 
further such late acute rejection episodes. 
 

EudraCT 2008-008553-27 
Sponsor: University of Oxford, UK 
 
3C_Protocol_V5.0_19122011.doc 
11 
1.7 
Two randomisations provides an efficient method of answering two important questions 
The aim of the 3C study is to test two hypotheses: 
 
is CAMPATH-based induction therapy superior to standard IL-2 receptor antagonist-based 
induction?  
 
does a switch to sirolimus-based maintenance immunosuppression at six months post-
transplant preserve graft function more effectively than remaining on CNI-based therapy? 
 
In order to test the first hypothesis, all study participants will initially be randomly allocated to receive 
either CAMPATH- or basiliximab-based induction therapy. Patients allocated to receive CAMPATH 
induction (arm 1) will be given two doses of 30mg 24 hours apart. However, patients over the age of 
60 will only be given the first 30mg dose (to avoid over-immunosuppression). For the next six months, 
these patients will receive low-dose tacrolimus (target level 5-7 ng/mL) and MPA (360mg bd)1.  
 
Patients who receive standard basiliximab induction (arm 2) will receive standard dose tacrolimus 
(target levels 5-12 ng/mL), mycophenolate (MPA, 540 to 720mg bd)1 and corticosteroids (which will be 
reduced gradually to 5mg od, and withdrawn at the local investigator’s discretion). These two groups 
(arms 1 and 2) can then be compared to compare the effect of a strategy of CAMPATH-based 
induction with a strategy based on standard IL-2 receptor antagonist induction. 
 
In order to test the second hypothesis, six months after transplantation patients will be also be 
randomly allocated to either remain on tacrolimus-based maintenance therapy or to change to a 
sirolimus-based regimen. Patients allocated to tacrolimus will have a target trough tacrolimus level of 
5-7 ng/mL, and those patients allocated to sirolimus will have a target trough sirolimus level of 6-12 
ng/mL for the first six months, then reducing to 5-10 ng/mL. These two groups can then be compared 
to investigate whether or not sirolimus does preserve graft function better than low-dose CNI-based 
maintenance therapy. 
 
  
                                               
1 If mycophenolate sodium cannot be prescribed for local reasons, a dispensation can be made to allow mycophenolate 
mofetil to be substituted (see Appendix 9: Mycophenolate dosing for equivalent dosing). 

EudraCT 2008-008553-27 
Sponsor: University of Oxford, UK 
 
3C_Protocol_V5.0_19122011.doc 
12 
2 
PLAN OF INVESTIGATION 
2.1 
STUDY AIMS 
 
The 3C study will include 800 patients aged over 18 years who have been listed for kidney 
transplantation. The two primary aims are to assess the differences: 
 
in biopsy-proven acute rejection among those allocated CAMPATH, low-dose tacrolimus and 
MPA versus basiliximab induction, standard-dose tacrolimus, MPA and corticosteroids as initial 
therapy (primary assessment at six months); 
 
in graft function among all those allocated tacrolimus versus sirolimus as maintenance therapy 
(primary assessment at two years). 
 
Secondary objectives include an assessment of study treatments (i.e. CAMPATH versus basiliximab, 
and tacrolimus versus sirolimus):  
 
on graft-related outcomes (graft survival, chronic allograft nephropathy, rates of biopsy-proven 
acute rejection);  
 
on safety outcomes (episodes of infection, in particular opportunistic infections; malignancy; 
patient survival);  
 
on other events of interest (new onset diabetes after transplantation [NODAT], 
hyperlipidaemia, anaemia, leucopaenia, thrombocytopaenia, hypertension). 
 
Tertiary objectives include assessment of the effects of study treatment on the primary outcomes 
within subgroups defined by various baseline characteristics (including assessment of graft function 
and survival in the two induction therapy groups). 
2.2 
TREATMENT COMPARISONS 
 
Study medications will not be blinded as this will not be practical. The effects of CAMPATH on the 
lymphocyte count are readily apparent, and are not shared with basiliximab. Also, the necessity of 
therapeutic drug level monitoring in the maintenance phase will make it infeasible to blind the 
tacrolimus and sirolimus. 
2.2.1 CAMPATH-  vs basiliximab-based induction 
At the time of surgery, patients will be allocated to receive either:  
 
CAMPATH induction, followed by low-dose tacrolimus (target trough levels 5-7 ng/mL) and 
MPA (360mg bd)2; or 
 
Basiliximab induction, followed by standard-dose tacrolimus (target trough levels 5-12 ng/mL), 
MPA (540 – 720mg bd)2 and reducing-dose corticosteroids (which will be withdrawn at the 
discretion of the local investigator[see Section 4.2.1.1]). 
2.2.2 Tacrolimus- vs sirolimus-based maintenance therapy 
Six months after transplantation, patients will be allocated to receive: 
 
tacrolimus-based maintenance therapy (target trough level 5-7 ng/mL); or 
sirolimus-based maintenance therapy (target trough level 6-12 ng/mL for first six months, then 
reducing to 5-10 ng/mL).The study treatments are outlined below in figure 3. Further details of the 
treatment 
schedules 
are 
given 
in 
Appendix 
2: 
Detailed 
treatment 
                                               
2 See footnote on page 10. 

EudraCT 2008-008553-27 
Sponsor: University of Oxford, UK 
 
3C_Protocol_V5.0_19122011.doc 
13 
schedules.
Figure 3: randomization scheme and timeline, including timing of primary assessment. For more detail of 
treatment schedules, see Appendix 2: Detailed treatment schedules. If mycophenolate sodium cannot be 
prescribed for local reasons, a dispensation can be made to allow mycophenolate mofetil to be substituted 
(see Appendix 9: Mycophenolate dosing for equivalent dosing).

EudraCT 2008-008553-27 
Sponsor: University of Oxford, UK 
 
3C_Protocol_V5.0_19122011.doc 
14 
 
2.3 
ASSESSMENT OF OUTCOMES 
 
Two data analysis plans will be agreed by the Steering Committee. The first of these will describe 
detailed methods for the analysis of the comparison of the group allocated to CAMPATH induction 
with the group allocated to basiliximab induction. This will include the primary assessment of acute 
rejection at six months years. Comparisons at later time points may be possible, but they are 
potentially biased by the effect of the second randomisation. 
 
The second will describe the detailed methods for the analysis of the comparison of the group of 
patients allocated to receive tacrolimus-based maintenance therapy with the group allocated to 
receive sirolimus-based maintenance therapy. This includes the primary assessment of graft function 
at two years, and secondary assessments of safety outcomes at one year.  
2.3.1 Comparison of induction therapies 
2.3.1.1 Primary assessment at six months 
The primary comparison will involve an “intention-to-treat” analysis of the time to first biopsy proven 
acute rejection episode, in patients allocated to arm 1 (CAMPATH induction) and arm 2 (basiliximab 
induction). 
2.3.1.2 Secondary assessments at six months 
Secondary assessments will include “intention-to-treat” analyses of: 
 
all rejection episodes (biopsy-proven and presumed) 
 
steroid-resistant rejection 
 
delayed graft function 
 
safety measures e.g. incidence of serious infection 
 
graft and patient survival 
 
2.3.1.3 Tertiary assessments at two and five years 
The long-term effect of induction therapy will be assessed in terms of: 
 
graft outcomes: graft function and graft survival 
 
safety outcomes: incidence of serious infection and cancer 
 
other outcomes of interest including major vascular events (a composite outcome of non-fatal 
myocardial infarction, cardiac death, non-fatal or fatal stroke and arterial revascularisation) 
 
patient survival 
 
Because such analyses are potentially biased by unequal numbers of patients undergoing the second 
randomization in the two induction therapy arms, these tertiary assessments will be interpreted 
cautiously and substantial allowance will be made for multiple hypothesis testing, the nature of the 
events and evidence from other studies. 
 

EudraCT 2008-008553-27 
Sponsor: University of Oxford, UK 
 
3C_Protocol_V5.0_19122011.doc 
15 
2.3.2 Comparison of maintenance therapies 
2.3.2.1 Primary assessment at two years 
The primary comparison will involve an “intention-to-treat” analysis of the graft function (estimated by 
calculating GFR using the 4-variable MDRD [Modification of Diet in Renal Disease] equation) at two 
years after transplantation, in patients allocated to sirolimus-based maintenance therapy (arms 1a and 
2a) and tacrolimus-based maintenance therapy (arms 1b and 2b). 
2.3.2.2 Secondary assessments at two and five years 
All secondary assessments will be conducted amongst all patients entering the maintenance therapy 
randomisation, and will be of the effects of maintenance treatment allocation (tacrolimus- versus 
sirolimus-based therapy) on safety outcomes and efficacy measures: 
 
1. safety measures 
 
incidence of serious infections (see section 4.1 for definition); 
 
incidence of malignancy (including post-transplantation lymphoproliferative disorder); 
 
2. efficacy measures 
 
incidence of acute rejection (biopsy-proven, presumed and steroid resistant: see Appendix 
1: Definitions for definition); 
 
graft survival; 
 
patient survival. 
 
major vascular events (a composite outcome of non-fatal myocardial infarction, cardiac 
death, non-fatal or fatal stroke and arterial revascularisation) 
2.3.2.3 Tertiary assessments at five years 
In addition, some of the above comparisons will also be conducted in pre-specified sub-groups of 
patients, including: 
 
induction therapy allocation; 
 
men and women; 
 
cadaveric and living-related transplants; 
 
categories of HLA mismatch; 
 
white and non-white; 
 
first transplant and subsequent transplants; 
 
categories of sensitisation; 
 
categories of baseline graft function (eGFR <40, 40-60, >60 mL/min/1.73m2); 
 
categories of baseline proteinuria (<30, 30-300, >300-1000, >1000 mg/day). 
 
2.3.3 Safety analysis at one year 
The relevant safety data from the induction therapy comparison at six months and the maintenance 
therapy comparison at one year will be included in this early safety analysis, once all patients have 
completed one year of follow-up. 
2.3.4 Health Economic analysis 
An economic analysis will be performed, with the objective of estimating average costs and 
effectiveness within each study arm, and the incremental cost-effectiveness of CAMPATH induction 
compared to basiliximab induction, and of tacrolimus-based maintenance therapy compared to 

EudraCT 2008-008553-27 
Sponsor: University of Oxford, UK 
 
3C_Protocol_V5.0_19122011.doc 
16 
sirolimus-based maintenance therapy. The analyses will be performed primarily from a health service 
perspective, but additional information will be collected on employment status.  
 
The time-horizon for the first comparison will be 6 months, in line with the primary trial outcomes, to 
include any differences in acute rejection rates but exclude any effects from the second 
randomisation. The time horizon for the second comparison will be at 2 years. In both cases additional 
lifetime analyses will be performed, based on registry data and an extrapolation model; this will be 
important to capture the long-term costs and effectiveness of the interventions and spill-over effects 
including the effect of reduced acute rejection rates and improved longer-term graft function on the 
availability of organs for others on waiting lists. 
 
Costs will be based on measured resources used and appropriate national unit costs. Resources will 
include immunosuppressant and other drugs, nephrology out-patient visits, biopsies and tests, and all 
treatments related to adverse events. These will be obtained primarily from trial case report forms, 
including (from one year after transplantation) a simple 1-page questionnaire to patients requesting 
information on GP and other consultations, other health care use, days off work and current work 
status. 
 
Outcomes in the economic evaluation will be based on quality adjusted survival. Quality of life will be 
measured using the EQ-5D administered at the discharge visit (for retrospective assessment of quality 
of life prior to transplant, and then at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months and annually thereafter. 
 
2.4 
DURATION AND DEFINITION OF END OF STUDY 
Patients will be recruited into the study at the time of their kidney transplant surgery. All willing and 
able patients will be seen then, and at the time of their discharge from hospital after this index 
admission. The patients will be seen again at 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12 months after surgery: these visits will 
usually be scheduled to coincide with their routine clinical appointments. Following this, patients will be 
followed up by annual postal or web-based questionnaires until a median follow-up of five years. 
Patients who do not respond to two mail or e-mail requests for information will be contacted by 
telephone by a member of the 3C study team in order to complete the questionnaire. Patients will also 
be “flagged” with central registries (e.g. NHS Information Centre, UK Renal Registry, Scottish Renal 
Registry, Hospital Episode Statistics) for long-term follow-up (i.e. beyond the period of questionnaire 
follow-up and potentially for the lifetime of the patient) which will permit a reliable assessment of the 
long-term safety and efficacy of the study treatments. The study will therefore continue until all 
patients have died (or withdrawn consent for registry-based follow-up). 
2.5 
SAMPLE SIZE CALCULATIONS 
The 3C study sample size is determined by the maintenance therapy allocation. A meta-analysis of 
the effect of conversion to sirolimus-based maintenance therapy showed an improvement in eGFR of 
6.4 mL/min (95% CI 1.9-11) in the group assigned to sirolimus (12). The trials included in this meta-
analysis varied in duration, with most patients followed for one year. If these differences could be 
maintained, it would be reasonable to anticipate a 10 mL/min difference in GFR two years after 
conversion to sirolimus (i.e. median follow-up at least 2.5 years after transplantation). Adherence to 
sirolimus therapy is likely to be around 75% (i.e. approximately 25% of patients allocated sirolimus in 
randomised trials discontinue it (12)) and this must be taken into consideration. 
 
800 patients would have excellent power (>90%) with alpha =0.05 and good power (>80%) with alpha 
=0.01 to detect such a difference when allowance is made for the likely proportion of patients who are 
ineligible for the second randomisation and adherence with sirolimus.  

EudraCT 2008-008553-27 
Sponsor: University of Oxford, UK 
 
3C_Protocol_V5.0_19122011.doc 
17 
 
800 patients would also provide good power (90%) with alpha =0.05 to detect a halving in the acute 
rejection rate at six months (from 15% to 7.5%), which is the primary comparison in the induction 
therapy comparison. 
 
2.6 
DATA AND SAFETY MONITORING 
2.6.1 Interim analyses: role of the Data Monitoring Committee and Steering Committee 
During the period of the study, interim analysis of serious adverse events, particularly those believed 
to be due to study treatment, will be supplied regularly (every three months during the first year of the 
study and six-monthly thereafter) in strict confidence to the Chairman of the independent Data 
Monitoring Committee. In the light of these analyses and the results of other relevant trials, the Data 
Monitoring Committee will advise the Steering Committee if, in their view, the randomised 
comparisons in the 3C trial have provided both (i) “proof beyond reasonable doubt”3 that for all, or 
some specific types, of patient, induction with CAMPATH and/or maintenance therapy with sirolimus is 
clearly indicated or contraindicated in terms of a net difference in graft or patient survival; and (ii) 
evidence that might be reasonably expected to influence materially the patient management of many 
clinicians who are already aware of the main results of any other trials. The Steering Committee can 
then decide whether to modify the study, or to seek additional data. Unless this happens, the Steering 
Committee, the local lead investigators, the study participants, and all study staff (except those who 
provide the confidential analyses to the Data Monitoring Committee) will remain blind to the study 
results. 
 
2.7 
CENTRAL COORDINATION OF LOCAL CLINICAL CENTRES (HOSPITAL CLINICS) 
2.7.1 Overview of study organisation 
The 3C Trial will be coordinated by the Coordinating Centre based at the Clinical Trial Service Unit of 
Oxford University. The Coordinating Centre will be responsible for the administrative support of the 
Local Clinical Centres (LCCs). At each LCC, a Lead Investigator (a transplant surgeon or 
nephrologist) and a LCC Research Nurse (or, in some circumstances, medically qualified research 
fellow) will be responsible for the identification, recruitment and follow-up of study patients for the 
duration of the study. It is hoped that most of the transplant centres in the UK (23 currently) will 
participate.  
2.7.2 Training and monitoring 
The 3C Trial will be conducted in accordance with the principles of the  International Conference on 
Harmonisation Guidelines for Good Clinical Practice (ICH-GCP) and relevant local, national and 
international regulations. Prior to initiation of the study at any LCC, the LCC clinic staff will be trained 
in the methods of the study and the LCC may be visited by a representative of the Coordinating 
Centre to ensure that the site has adequate facilities and resources to carry out the study. In addition, 
LCC Lead Investigators and LCC clinic staff will be provided with materials detailing relevant study 
procedures for LCCs (“Manual for Local Clinical Centre Procedures”). 
 
                                               
3 appropriate criteria of proof beyond reasonable doubt cannot be specified precisely, but in general terms a difference of at 
least three standard deviations in an interim analysis of graft or patient survival would be needed to justify halting, or 
modifying the study prematurely. This criterion has the practical advantage that the exact number of interim analyses is of 
little importance. 

EudraCT 2008-008553-27 
Sponsor: University of Oxford, UK 
 
3C_Protocol_V5.0_19122011.doc 
18 
During the study, representatives of the Coordinating Centre will visit all LCCs as required by needs of 
the centre and monitoring. The purpose of these visits will be to help LCC clinic staff to resolve any 
local problems with the study, to ensure that the study is conducted according to the protocol and 
Good Clinical Practice, and to review study records, data quality and the completeness of follow-up. A 
report of each visit will be prepared by the monitor and reviewed by the Coordinating Centre staff. 
2.7.3 Supply of study materials 
Equipment for the study clinics and all paperwork (e.g. study manuals, stationery) will be provided by 
the Coordinating Centre. Study treatments will not be provided (see section 3.13). 
2.7.4 Data management 
Patient data will be entered by clinic staff onto electronic Case Report Forms, which will then be 
forwarded to the coordinating centre. Data from these forms will be entered into computer databases 
at the coordinating centre, and stored on secure servers. Patient identifiable details will be stored for 
the purposes of flagging patients with central registries, but such details will be stored separately to all 
other data collected and linked by a unique study identifier. 
2.7.5 Laboratory measurement of samples 
All blood and urine test results required for the 3C study will coincide with those taken for routine 
clinical management. The Case Report Forms will include spaces for relevant results to be 
transcribed. 
2.7.6 Source documents and archiving 
As far as possible the CRF will be completed by direct interview with the participant. It may also be 
necessary to refer to the patient's hospital records (including electronic clinical, laboratory and 
pharmacy records). Furthermore, the additional information obtained on key variables from electronic 
records, reported outcome measures and other relevant events, death certificates and other 
information from national registries will also be source documents for the study. Investigators will 
permit trial related monitoring, audit or regulatory inspection providing direct access to source 
data/documents. 
2.7.7 Funding 
This study has been initiated and designed by the 3C Trial Steering Committee, and the data will be 
collected, analysed and published independently of the source of funding. Grants have been received 
from NHS Blood & Transplant, Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd and John Wyeth and Brother Ltd. 
The University of Oxford will act as the Sponsor in this study. This grant will support the central and 
local administration of the study, meetings and travel, study materials, and the necessary LCC clinic 
staff time. The cost of drugs (including study drugs) will not be funded by the 3C budget. 
2.7.8 Indemnity 
The University of Oxford, as Sponsor, will indemnify participating Research Subjects against any harm 
arising from their participation in this study. Furthermore, any harm arising from the provision of clinical 
treatment - and which would have arisen irrespective of the participation in this study - , and arising 
from negligence will be indemnified under the terms of the participating hospital trust's membership of 
Clinical Negligence Scheme for Trusts [or local variations for any hospitals participating  from 
Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland] administered by the NHS Litigation Authority. 

EudraCT 2008-008553-27 
Sponsor: University of Oxford, UK 
 
3C_Protocol_V5.0_19122011.doc 
19 
2.7.9 Publications, reports and substudies 
Draft copies of any manuscripts will be provided to all local lead investigators for review prior to their 
submission for publication. Papers will be written in the name of the 3C Trial Collaboration, with each 
individual investigator named personally at the end of the report (or to comply with medical journal 
requirements, in web-based material posted with the report).  
 
Proposals for sub-studies on patients randomised into the 3C Trial will be welcomed, but must be 
approved by the Steering Committee before these begin. In considering such proposals, the Steering 
Committee will need to be satisfied that the proposed sub-study is of a high quality and that it will not 
compromise the main study in any way (for example by reducing the recruitment rate or compliance 
with study treatment). 

EudraCT 2008-008553-27 
Sponsor: University of Oxford, UK 
 
3C_Protocol_V5.0_19122011.doc 
20 
3 
SUMMARY OF PRACTICAL PROCEDURES  
 
POTENTIALLY ELIGIBLE 
 
active on transplant waiting list, or live donor transplant planned 
 
aged over 18 
 
male or female 
 
IDENTIFICATION AND INVITATION 
 
potentially eligible patients identified from local transplant waiting list 
 
agreement to screen such patients sought from consultants 
 
patient sent information about the trial 
 
FIRST RANDOMISATION (prior to surgery) 
 
Written informed consent sought from eligible and willing patients 
 
Basic medical history and details of transplant recorded 
 
induction therapy randomisation: CAMPATH- or basiliximab-based induction 
 
Inform patient’s nephrologist, transplant surgeon and GP of randomisation 
 
DISCHARGE VISIT (and FOLLOW-UP VISITS at 1, 3, 6, 9 & 12 months)  
 
Further details of medical history and transplant 
 
Serious adverse events  
 
Current medication 
 
Clinical measurements and laboratory results 
 
SECOND RANDOMISATION (at ~6 months after transplantation) 
 
check inclusion and exclusion criteria for second randomisation 
 
maintenance therapy randomisation: sirolimus- or tacrolimus-based maintenance therapy 
 
inform patient’s nephrologist, transplant surgeon and GP of randomisation 
 
 
FOLLOW-UP after one year after transplantation 
 
Annual postal questionnaire for serious adverse events, medications, other health care usage 
and quality of life (until median 5 year follow-up) 
 
Registry sources for laboratory results, survival and cancers (for duration of the study). 
 
MONITORING OF SAFETY AND EFFICACY 
 
Central review of blood results and SAEs by Coordinating Centre 
 
Further details on relevant outcomes from hospital records sought by LCC clinic staff 
 
Relevant events confirmed and reviewed by central Outcomes Adjudication Panel 
 
See also Appendix 6: Schedule of study procedures. 
 

EudraCT 2008-008553-27 
Sponsor: University of Oxford, UK 
 
3C_Protocol_V5.0_19122011.doc 
21 
3.1 
ELIGIBILITY FOR THE 3C STUDY 
 
Patients are eligible for randomisation into the 3C Study if: (a) their nephrologist or transplant surgeon 
does not believe there is a definite indication for, or contraindication to, CAMPATH or sirolimus; and 
(b) all inclusion criteria are satisfied whilst no exclusion criterion applies. 
3.1.1 Identification of potentially eligible patients 
Potentially eligible patients will be identified by the LCCs from their transplant waiting list with their 
consultant’s permission. Such patients will be sent a letter informing them of the trial or informed at 
routine outpatient clinic attendance (at centres where mailing everyone on the local waiting list is not 
feasible or desirable). Details of the 3C study will be provided with contact details for the local clinic 
staff should the patient have any questions. This will raise knowledge and awareness of the trial so 
that, when the patient is approached in the immediate pre-operative period, informed consent can 
more appropriately be requested. 
 
3.2 
FIRST RANDOMISATION VISIT 
3.2.1 Assessment of relevant medical history and eligibility 
 
This will be done after the patient has been called for transplant. If this is during the time when the 
clinic staff are working, they will discuss the trial with the patient. If it is outside of these hours, then the 
local lead investigator (or his/her designated deputy) will undertake this discussion.  
 
There is no contraindication to entry into the 3C study on the basis of concomitant medication. All 
medications will be recorded at the discharge visit (see section 3.3.3 below). 
3.2.1.1 Inclusion criteria for first randomisation 
 
men or women aged over 18 years; 
 
recipient of a first or subsequent kidney from a cadaveric or live donor; 
 
negative pregnancy test at randomisation, and agreement to use an acceptable form of 
contraception for duration of the study from women with child-bearing potential. Anuric 
(therefore unable to provide a urine specimen) female patients with child-bearing potential will 
be eligible, providing they agree to use an acceptable form of contraception. 
3.2.1.2 Exclusion criteria for first randomisation 
 
Recipients of multi-organ transplants (eg kidney + liver, kidney + pancreas) 
 
previous treatment with CAMPATH; 
 
active infection, including HIV (antigen or antibody), hepatitis B (surface antigen), or hepatitis C 
(PCR) positivity; 
 
past history of anaphylaxis following exposure to humanised monoclonal antibodies; 
 
history of malignancy (with the exception of adequately treated non-melanoma skin cancer) 
diagnosed or recurred in the last five years; 
 
loss of previous kidney transplant within six months not due to technical reasons;  
 
medical history that might limit the individual’s ability to take trial treatments for the duration of 
the study. 
 

EudraCT 2008-008553-27 
Sponsor: University of Oxford, UK 
 
3C_Protocol_V5.0_19122011.doc 
22 
3.2.2 Invitation to participate in the randomised study and patient consent 
Those patients who appear to be eligible will have the study explained to them by the study staff, 
using the Patient Information Sheet as a basis for discussion. Patients will be given a copy of the 
Patient Information Sheet and will have an opportunity to ask any questions and have a short time to 
think about their participation in the study. Patients will be discouraged from participating if it is thought 
unlikely that they would be willing and able to comply with follow-up for at least five years. 
 
Eligible patients who agree to participate will be asked to provide written informed consent to enter the 
study, which will include consent for both the first and second randomisations and for long-term 
registry-based follow-up. One copy of the signed consent form will be filed in the patient’s medical 
notes, one copy will be given to the patient and one copy will be stored in the site file. 
3.2.3 Completion of case report form 
The LCC staff will complete an electronic case report form which will include patient identifiable details 
(so that the patients can be “flagged” with national registries), the inclusion and exclusion criteria and 
basic details about their previous treatment (if any) for end-stage renal disease and the transplant 
itself. 
3.2.4 Random allocation of study treatment 
Eligible and consenting individuals will then be randomised to study treatments. The study IT system 
will minimise the randomisation with respect to important patient characteristics (42). The study staff 
will be informed which induction therapy the patient is to receive (CAMPATH- or basiliximab-based 
induction) and given the patient’s unique study reference. 
 
The randomisation procedure will use minimized randomisation in order to ensure that treatment 
groups are balanced with respect to prognostically significant variables. The minimization variables will 
be: 
 
Recipient age: ≤30, 31-59, ≥60 years old; 
 
Ethnicity: white, non-white; 
 
Type of transplant: cadaveric heart-beating donor, non-heart-beating donor, living donor; 
 
HLA mismatch: as per current UK Transplant protocol:  
o 0-0-0 (HLA A-B-DR) mismatch;  
o 0 DR mismatch and 0-1 B mismatch; 
o 0 DR mismatch and 2 B mismatch, or 1 DR mismatch and 0-1 B mismatch; 
o 1 DR mismatch and 2 B mismatch, or 2 DR mismatch and 0-2 B mismatch; 
 
patient sensitisation status: ‘highly sensitized’ defined, for example, by a positive cross-match 
with 85% of donors (reaction frequency >85%). 
 
centre 
3.2.5 Reducing dose of CAMPATH in elderly 
In view of concerns of over-immunosuppression in the elderly (and in particular the risk of post-
transplant lymphoproliferative disorder in this group) the total dose of CAMPATH will be reduced in 
those ≥60 years old. These patients will not receive the second 30mg dose of CAMPATH. 
3.2.6 Informing patient’s GP 
The local centre will write to inform the patient’s GP of their entry into the study when they are 
discharged from hospital following their transplant if such information is not included in the standard 
discharge summary from the local hospital. The letter will include contact details for the local centre 
should the GP have any questions. 

EudraCT 2008-008553-27 
Sponsor: University of Oxford, UK 
 
3C_Protocol_V5.0_19122011.doc 
23 
3.3 
DISCHARGE VISIT 
All patients will be seen again prior to their discharge from hospital after their index admission (i.e. the 
admission for transplant surgery). They will ideally be seen on the day of their discharge, or as close 
to it as is possible. 
3.3.1 Further details of medical history and transplant 
Further details of the patient’s medical (and in particular, renal) history will be sought and noted on the 
CRF. In addition, details about the transplant which would not have been available at the time of 
randomisation will be noted. 
3.3.2 Adverse events 
Any serious adverse events that occur during the index admission will be recorded on a separate SAE 
case report form (see section 3.10.2). This will include a description of the event (including how it 
meets the criteria for being a serious adverse event), the date of onset and resolution. An assessment 
of relationship to study treatments will also be made, and if it is thought to be related (i.e. a Suspected 
Serious Adverse Reaction, SSAR) then it will be reported to the Coordinating Centre immediately. 
 
Non-serious adverse events that are thought to be related to study treatment will also be recorded at 
this visit. 
3.3.3 Discharge medication 
A list of medication (including dosages and frequency) will be recorded. 
3.3.4 Clinical measurements 
The patient’s blood pressure, height and weight will be recorded. 
3.3.5 Laboratory results 
The results of blood and urine tests from the day the form is completed (or the closest available 
results) will be recorded. This will include serum creatinine and albumin, full blood count, tacrolimus 
level and urine protein:creatinine ratio. 
3.3.6 Health economic evaluation 
Patients will be asked to complete an EQ-5D quality of life assessment retrospectively to evaluate 
their quality of life prior to the admission for transplantation. 
 
3.4 
FOLLOW-UP VISITS (at months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12) 
Following randomisation, patients are scheduled to be seen prior to discharge from hospital following 
the index admission, then at months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12. These are timed to coincide as far as possible 
with the standard follow-up of these patients, so extra visits will be kept to a minimum. Telephone 
follow-up will be used should the patient be unable to attend a clinic follow-up. 
3.4.1 Adverse events 
All serious adverse events will be recorded on a separate SAE CRF. This will be similar to section 
3.3.2 above. If the SAE is thought to be due to study treatment, it should be discussed immediately 
with the Clinical Coordinator or his/her deputy for expedited reporting (see section 3.10.3). 
 
Non-serious adverse events should only be recorded if they are believed to be due to study treatment. 

EudraCT 2008-008553-27 
Sponsor: University of Oxford, UK 
 
3C_Protocol_V5.0_19122011.doc 
24 
3.4.2 Current medication and clinical measurements 
The patient’s current medication will be recorded. Blood pressure will be recorded at all follow-up visits 
and weight recorded at 6 and 12 months.. 
3.4.3 Blood results 
At each follow-up visit, results for creatinine and therapeutic drug level monitoring will be recorded, as 
well as a full blood count, lipid profile (total cholesterol, HDL-cholesterol and triglycerides if available) 
and urinary protein:creatinine ratio at certain visits. These will be copies of results of routine clinical 
tests requested by the managing team. See Appendix 6: Schedule of study procedures. 
3.4.4 Health economic evaluation 
Patients will be asked to complete an EQ-5D quality of life assessment and answer a brief 
questionnaire to capture details of health care usage, days off work and current work status (see 
section 2.3.4). 
 
3.4.5 Steroid withdrawal in basiliximab-allocated patients 
Patients allocated to basiliximab will have a reducing course of prednisolone prescribed (see Section 
4.2.1.1). Prednisolone can be withdrawn completely at the discretion of the local investigator but 
should not be withdrawn between 5 and 7 months after surgery (i.e. around the time of the second 
randomisation). 
 
3.5 
SECOND RANDOMISATION (at ~6 months) 
The second randomisation (between sirolimus- and tacrolimus-based maintenance therapy) can occur 
from 5 to 7 months post-transplantation (ideally to coincide with 6 month follow-up visit). The following 
exclusion critera will apply: 
 
proteinuria >800 mg/day (or protein:creatinine ratio >80 mg/mmol); 
 
biopsy-proven acute rejection (Banff score >1) in previous month. 
 
(See section 3.5.1 for guidance on the management of patients who are not willing and eligible for 
second randomisation or whose local investigator does not consider it in their best interests.) 
 
In order to minimise the impact of this exclusion criterion, investigators will be encouraged to monitor 
proteinuria and treat it appropriately (with ACE inhibitors and/or angiotensin receptor blockers) during 
the first six months post-transplant surgery. 
 
The second randomisation will be stratified by induction therapy allocation and minimized by 
prognostically-relevant criteria including graft function, proteinuria and blood pressure. 
 
Investigators should only randomise patients for whom they remain uncertain about the benefits of 
CNI-based or sirolimus-based maintenance treatment. Patients with reduced graft function (e.g. eGFR 
<40 mL/min/1.73m2) will not be routinely excluded, but their events in this subgroup will be monitored 
closely by the independent Data Monitoring Committee. 
 
Patients will be allocated to either remain on tacrolimus (all patients to have target trough level 5-7 
ng/mL) or convert to sirolimus. The target trough level for sirolimus is 6-12 ng/mL for the first six 
months (patients who received basiliximab induction should be maintained at the upper end of this 
range) and thereafter 5-10 ng/mL.  

EudraCT 2008-008553-27 
Sponsor: University of Oxford, UK 
 
3C_Protocol_V5.0_19122011.doc 
25 
3.5.1 Management of patients who do not enter maintenance therapy randomisation 
Patients who do not have their maintenance treatment randomised should have their tacrolimus target 
trough level reduced to 5-7 ng/mL (unless their local investigator wishes to do otherwise). 
3.6 
FOLLOW-UP AFTER ONE YEAR AFTER TRANSPLANTATION 
After their one year follow-up visit, all patients will be followed-up by ”flagging” with national registries 
(see below) and annual questionnaires (to capture information on serious adverse events, non-study 
medication, other health care usage, work status and a quality of life assessment). Flagging with 
central registries will allow long-term follow-up of all patients to reliably assess the long-term safety 
and efficacy of the study treatments. 
3.6.1 Serious adverse events 
Information about Serious Adverse Events will be collected from national registries (including but not 
limited to the Medical Records Information Service [MRIS], Hospital Episode Statistics, the UK Renal 
Registry, the Scottish Renal Registry). Further supporting documentation will be requested from the 
hospital where the event occurred if the SAE is: 
 
reported as being related to study treatment (and therefore a Suspected Serious 
Adverse Reaction [SSAR]; see section 3.10.1); 
 
a potential study endpoint (see Section 2.3). 
3.6.2 Laboratory results 
Relevant laboratory results will be obtained by a data feed from the Renal Registry and/or UK 
Transplant (or from LCC if necessary). Consent for this will have been obtained at the time of the initial 
surgery, and only relevant data will be requested from these sources. 
3.6.3 Mailed questionnaires 
All patients in the study will be sent an annual questionnaire (starting at around 2 years after 
transplantation) which will request details of any serious adverse events (in particular episodes of 
acute rejection) and current medication (including last recorded tacrolimus or sirolimus level). 
Questionnaires will be sent until a median follow-up of five years has occurred. 
3.7 
FOLLOW-UP AT REFERRING HOSPITALS 
At certain centres it may be standard practice for patients to return to their referring hospital for routine 
follow-up after a certain period after transplantation. If this occurs prior to the second randomisation 
the investigator at the transplant centre remains responsible (after discussion with the local managing 
clinician) for the second randomisation and will inform the local physician of the treatment allocation. 
Follow-up forms will be completed by telephone by staff from the transplant centre with relevant 
laboratory results being sought from the local hospital.  
3.8 
DISCONTINUATION OF STUDY TREATMENT 
Patients will be encouraged to adhere to study treatments during the study. However, the local 
investigator may decide to discontinue study treatment at any time in the interests of the patient’s 
health and well being. For example, study treatment may be temporarily or permanently discontinued 
for a particular patient if one of the following criteria are met: 
 
serious adverse event thought likely to be due to study treatment; 
 
conditions or procedures in which trial agents may be contraindicated (e.g. patients on 
sirolimus undergoing surgery where wound healing is a concern) (see section 4.3.1.1); 
 
pregnancy or any other situation where, in the opinion of the patient’s own doctors or the clinic 
staff, continuing study treatments would not be in the patient’s best interest. 

EudraCT 2008-008553-27 
Sponsor: University of Oxford, UK 
 
3C_Protocol_V5.0_19122011.doc 
26 
 
If a patient wishes to discontinue from study treatment, he or she would still be followed-up for the 
duration of the study in the usual way. Complete follow-up of such data is essential as the analysis will 
be on an “intention-to-treat” basis. 
 
3.9 
WITHDRAWAL FROM STUDY 
 
In accordance with ICH-GCP, a patient has the right to withdraw from the study at any time and for 
any reason, without prejudice to his or her future medical care by the physician or at the institution, 
and is not obliged to give his or her reasons for doing so. If patients are no longer willing to attend 
study clinics or complete questionnaires, then this data will be collected directly from the transplant 
centre and central registries, unless patients withdraw consent for this as well. 
  
3.10  REPORTING ADVERSE EVENTS 
3.10.1 Non-serious adverse events 
Any non-serious adverse events that are believed to be due to study treatment will be recorded on the 
case report form. Other non-serious adverse events will not be recorded as they are common in this 
population and if not related to study treatment, analysis of such events is unlikely to yield useful 
information about the safety and efficacy of the study treatments. 
3.10.2 Serious adverse events 
Serious adverse events (SAEs) are defined as those adverse events that: 
 
result in death; 
 
are life-threatening; 
 
require in-patient hospitalisation or prolongation of existing hospitalisation; 
 
result in persistent or significant disability or incapacity; 
 
are a congenital anomaly or birth defect following maternal or paternal exposure; 
 
are important medical events in the opinion of the responsible investigator (i.e. any event that 
is not immediately life-threatening and does not result in death or hospitalisation but which may 
jeopardise the patient or may require intervention to prevent one or the other outcomes listed 
above).  
 
In addition, the following events will be recorded as Serious Adverse Events in this protocol.: 
o cancers (including post-transplantation lymphoproliferative disorder) 
o transplant biopsies 
o rejection episodes 
o loss of graft 
o opportunistic infections such as cytomegalovirus and BK virus 
o deliberate overdose of study treatment 
 
All reports of SAEs will be entered on the IT system and those that are potential study endpoints will 
be reviewed, verified and coded (see section 3.12). SAEs that are not considered due to study 
treatment will be processed in a manner that allows the Coordinating Centre to provide information on 
such events for regulatory processes in accordance with current timelines4. 
 
                                               
4 Such as stipulated in the European Clinical Trial Directive (Article 18 of Directive 2001/20/EC). 

EudraCT 2008-008553-27 
Sponsor: University of Oxford, UK 
 
3C_Protocol_V5.0_19122011.doc 
27 
Information about the occurrence of study outcomes and all other serious adverse events (SAEs) will 
be sought at scheduled visits (for the first year after transplantation) and from national and other 
registries (including, but not limited to the Medical Records Information Service [MRIS], Hospital 
Episode Statistics, the UK Renal Registry, the Scottish Renal Registry).  
 
The following minimum information will be collected for all SAEs: 
 
the unique Study Identification Number (Study ID) for the participant; 
 
the unique SAE Form Identification Number (SAE Form ID); 
 
the time and date that the SAE Form is completed; 
 
the source of the report (e.g. patient, relative, friend, etc.); 
 
a description of the event (e.g. myocardial infarction, pneumonia); 
 
the reason for believing the adverse event to be serious (e.g. death, life-threatening, 
hospitalisation, disabling, congenital anomaly in offspring, other important medical condition); 
 
the date the event first occurred (or started); 
 
the place the event was diagnosed or was managed (e.g. hospital inpatient, hospital 
outpatient, GP surgery, etc.); 
 
the number of nights spent in hospital (where appropriate); 
 
the name of the place the event occurred (where appropriate); 
 
the name of the doctor responsible for the patient’s care; 
 
the outcome at the time of reporting (e.g. death, ongoing, recovered, unknown); 
 
whether believed due to study treatment, and (if so), which study treatment(s) is suspected; 
 
details of person reporting the SAE. 
 
3.10.3 Immediate reporting of any serious adverse event believed to be due to study treatment 
All SAEs considered to be due to study treatment with a reasonable probability (i.e. Suspected 
Serious Adverse Reactions: SSARs) are to be reported immediately 5 to a Coordinating Centre 
clinician. The Coordinating Centre clinician will then record standard information including patient 
study number, the identity of the person reporting the event, a narrative description of the event and 
the reasons for possible attribution of the event to study treatment. All such reports will be assessed 
promptly by the Clinical Coordinator (or his deputy) who will seek any necessary additional 
information, and review the event’s seriousness, relatedness (preferably in discussion with the 
reporting party) and expectedness (see section 3.10.4). The Clinical Coordinator will provide a report 
of all SSARs (regardless of treatment allocation), to the Chairman of the Data Monitoring Committee 
at regular intervals (see section 2.6) and to the responsible Research Ethics Committee and 
regulatory authority in the trial Development Safety Update Report.  
 
For those SSARs that are unexpected (Suspected Unexpected Serious Adverse Reaction, SUSAR), 
the Coordinating Centre will provide a report to all relevant Ethics Committees, Investigators, host 
NHS institution and appropriate regulatory authorities to comply with the expedited reporting 
requirements for SUSARs6.  
3.10.4 Expected study treatment related adverse events 
These are those defined by the documents for each study drug listed below. 
                                               
5 ideally while the patient is still with clinic staff. Failing that, it should be discussed within 12 hours of being reported. 
6 Such as stipulated in the European Clinical Trial Directive (Article 18 of Directive 2001/20/EC). 

EudraCT 2008-008553-27 
Sponsor: University of Oxford, UK 
 
3C_Protocol_V5.0_19122011.doc 
28 
3.10.4.1 CAMPATH 
Summary of Product Characteristics dated 04 June 2009. 
3.10.4.2 Basiliximab 
Summary of Product Characteristics dated 16 December 2008. 
3.10.4.3 Tacrolimus 
Summary of Product Characteristics dated 26 May 2009. 
3.10.4.4 Sirolimus 
Summary of Product Characteristics dated 14 May 2009. 
3.11 Out-of-hours assistance 
If doctors at collaborating centres have any questions, they will be able to contact an on-call doctor 
from the coordinating centre by calling 0800 585323 (Freefone). Such help is available 24 hours a 
day, seven days a week. 
 
If patients in the study (or those considering entering the study) have any questions relating to the 
study, they can also call 0800 585323 (Freefone) and speak to a coordinating centre doctor.  
3.12 CONFIRMATION AND VERIFICATION OF STUDY OUTCOMES 
3.12.1 Confirmation of all deaths and relevant non-fatal serious adverse events 
The LCC clinic staff will seek additional information from the hospital records and other appropriate 
sources about SAEs that are of particular interest. Such SAEs include those reported as acute 
rejection, graft loss, opportunistic infections (such as CMV and BKV), malignancy (including PTLD) or 
other hospital admissions.  
 
The Coordinating Centre will also seek, from the Medical Records Information Service and other 
relevant sources, the certified cause of death for all patients randomised into the study. For each 
death reported, the LCC clinic staff will seek additional information from the hospital records and other 
appropriate sources.  
3.12.2 Central verification of study outcomes 
A Central Outcomes Adjudication Panel will review the specified causes of all deaths and all serious 
adverse events. 
 
3.13 STUDY TREATMENTS 
There are four Investigational Medicinal Products (IMPs) in the 3C study: CAMPATH and its 
comparator basiliximab, and sirolimus and its comparator tacrolimus. Further details of the doses used 
of these study treatments are given in Appendix 2: Detailed treatment schedules. 
3.13.1 Supply of study treatments 
All study treatments are marketed products and will be purchased by the host institution for use in the 
trial. 

EudraCT 2008-008553-27 
Sponsor: University of Oxford, UK 
 
3C_Protocol_V5.0_19122011.doc 
29 
3.13.2 Labelling of study treatments 
Basiliximab, sirolimus and tacrolimus all have a license for renal transplantation and are used regularly 
as specified by this protocol. They will be prescribed by the patient’s managing doctor and labelled in 
accordance with the requirements for a dispensed medicine. These IMPs are exempt from the 
labelling requirements and will be labelled according to the Clinical Trials Regulation 46(2) of SI 2004 
No. 1031. 
 
CAMPATH does not have a license for kidney transplantation but will be prescribed by the patient’s 
managing doctor. It will be labelled by the sites according the Medicine for Human Use (Clinical Trials) 
Regulation 46(1). An example label is shown in Appendix 7: Specimen label for CAMPATH. 
3.13.3 Storage of study treatments 
A stock of CAMPATH will be stored on the transplant ward in a refrigerator and a daily temperature log 
kept. This stock will be labelled (with labels provided by the coordinating centre [see Appendix 7: 
Specimen label for CAMPATH]) and maintained by the host pharmacy to ensure that availability of 
CAMPATH does not limit recruitment into the study. Other study treatments will be stored according to 
local practice. 
3.13.4 Modification of dose of study treatments 
The doses of study drugs to be used in the 3C study are outlined in Appendix 2: Detailed treatment 
schedules. However, if a patient cannot tolerate the specified dose, then it can be altered at the 
discretion of the local investigator. Any adverse events that lead to dose modification (or 
discontinuation of the study treatment) will be recorded, as will the current dose of study treatment. 
3.13.5 Accountability of study IMPs 
CAMPATH requires a full accountability record to be maintained at the site. The other IMPs 
(basiliximab, tacrolimus and sirolimus) are exempt from the accountability requirements because they 
are being used under license on the prescription of a doctor. Furthermore, it would not be feasible to 
maintain such records for the duration of the study given the wide variety of routes by which 
participants receive such treatments around the UK. 

EudraCT 2008-008553-27 
Sponsor: University of Oxford, UK 
 
3C_Protocol_V5.0_19122011.doc 
30 
4 
APPENDICES 
4.1 
Appendix 1: Definitions 
 
Acute rejection: 
 
Biopsy-proven: 
Rise in serum creatinine ≥20% above baseline accompanied by 
consistent changes on allograft biopsy (43) 
Presumed: 
Rise in serum creatinine ≥20% above baseline, treated as acute 
rejection either without biopsy or with inconsistent biopsy findings. 
Steroid-resistant: 
Failure of graft function to return to baseline following treatment of acute 
rejection with pulse of steroids. 
 
Anaemia (44):  
 
Hb <13 g/dL in men, <12 g/dL in women; 
 
Severe: 
 
Hb <11 g/dL in men, <10 g/dL in women. 
 
Leucopaenia:  
 
Total white count <3.0 x109 cells/mm3. 
 
Neutropaenia:  
 
Absolute neutrophil count <2.0 x109 cells/mm3; 
 
Severe: 
 
Absolute neutrophil count <1.0 x109 cells/mm3. 
 
Thrombocytopaenia:  
Platelet count <75 x109 cells/mm3. 
 
CMV syndrome: 
Suggestive symptoms AND positive laboratory assay (e.g. CMV antigen, 
CMV PCR). 
 
Invasive CMV disease: 
Histological evidence (or suggestive radiological findings) of CMV tissue 
infection, in presence of suggestive symptoms or signs and positive 
laboratory assay. 
 
BK virus infection: 
Positive blood PCR for BK virus. 
 
BK nephritis: 
Histological evidence of BK virus infection of graft (e.g. positive staining 
for SV40 antigen) and positive blood PCR for BK virus. 
 
New-onset diabetes after transplantation (NODAT) (45): 
 
Fasting blood sugar >7 mmol/L; or 
 
Random blood sugar >11 mmol/L; or 
 
New use of oral hypoglycaemic agent or insulin 
 
 

EudraCT 2008-008553-27 
Sponsor: University of Oxford, UK 
3C_Protocol_V5.0_19122011.doc 
31 
4.2 
Appendix 2: Detailed treatment schedules 
4.2.1 Induction treatments: 
 
 
Day 0 
Day 1 
Day 2 
Day 3 
Day 4- 
Month 6 
Month 12 
ALLOCATION TO CAMPATH INDUCTION 
 
 
TRANSPLANT SURGERY 
 
 
Tacrolimus  
 
 
 
2mg bd PO 
Target trough 
level 5-7 ng/mL 
See 4.2.2 
 
Steroids 
500mg IV 
methylprednisolone 
pre-reperfusion 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CAMPATH7 
30mg IV8 prior to re-
perfusion (within 15-
30 minutes of 
methylprednisolone) 
30mg IV 24h after first dose 
(unless patient >60 years 
old) 
 
 
 
 
 
Other 
10mg 
chlorphenamine IV 
15-30 mins prior to 
CAMPATH 
10mg chlorphenamine IV 15-
30 mins prior to CAMPATH 
1g paracetamol 30-60 mins 
prior to CAMPATH 
 
 
 
 
 
MPA9 
360mg pre-op PO 
360mg bd PO 
360mg bd PO 
180mg bd PO 
ALLOCATION TO BASILIXIMAB INDUCTION 
 
 
TRANSPLANT SURGERY 
 
 
Tacrolimus  
0.05 - 0.1mg/kg bd 
PO 
Target trough level 5-12 ng/mL 
See 4.2.2 
 
Steroids 
500mg IV 
methylprednisolone 
pre-reperfusion  
15-20 mg pre-op PO, then reduced (see section 4.2.1.1) 
 
 
Basiliximab 
20mg 1h  
pre-op IV 
 
 
 
 
 
20mg IV 
 
 
MPA9  
540 - 720mg pre-op 
540 - 720mg bd  
540 - 720mg bd  
540 - 720mg bd PO 
                                               
7 See Appendix 8 for guidelines for administration of CAMPATH 
8 If a centre wishes to administer CAMPATH subcutaneously they may do so in all their patients. 
9 If mycophenolate sodium cannot be prescribed for local reasons, a dispensation can be made to allow mycophenolate mofetil to be substituted (see Appendix 9: 
Mycophenolate dosing for equivalent dosing). 

EudraCT 2008-008553-27 
Sponsor: University of Oxford, UK 
3C_Protocol_V5.0_19122011.doc 
32 
4.2.1.1 Basiliximab patients: Prednisolone withdrawal 
Corticosteroid withdrawal in the basiliximab arm should begin no later than two weeks after transplantation. The dose should be reduced 
according to local practice. Reduction beyond 5mg daily would require specific approval from the local investigator, but should not occur 
between 5-7 months after transplantation (ie, around time of second randomisation). Examples of where complete prednisolone withdrawal 
may be not be appropriate, include a pre-existing condition that is controlled by steroids (e.g. SLE), recent rejection episode, failure to 
tolerate other immunosuppression at full-intended doses, a non-favourably matched highly sensitised recipient / re-transplant. 

EudraCT 2008-008553-27 
Sponsor: University of Oxford, UK 
3C_Protocol_V5.0_19122011.doc 
33 
 
4.2.2 Maintenance treatments 
 
 
Month 6:  
Day +0 
 
Day +1 
 
Day +2 
 
Day +3 
 
Day +4 
ALLOCATION TO SIROLIMUS MAINTENANCE 
Tacrolimus  
Stop after evening 
dose10 
 
Sirolimus 
 
3mg od 
(unless <60 
kg when 2 
mg od) 
3mg od 
(unless <60 kg 
when 2 mg od) 
3mg od (unless <60 kg 
when 2 mg od) 
3mg od (unless <60 kg when 2 mg od) 
 
 
 
 
 
Trough level (target 6-12 ng/mL 
reducing to 5-10 ng/mL from 12 months 
post-transplantation) 
 
MPA11 (for patients in 
Campath arm) 
360mg bd (reduced to 180mg bd from 12 months post-transplantation) 
 
MPA11 (for patients in 
basiliximab arm) 
540 - 720mg bd 
 
ALLOCATION TO TACROLIMUS MAINTENANCE 
Tacrolimus  
Target trough level 5-7 ng/mL 
MPA11 (for patients in 
Campath arm) 
360mg bd (reduced to 180mg bd from 12 months post-transplantation) 
 
MPA11 (for patients in 
basiliximab arm) 
540 - 720mg bd 
 
                                               
10 If once-daily tacrolimus is used, stop after morning dose 
11 If mycophenolate sodium cannot be prescribed for local reasons, a dispensation can be made to allow mycophenolate mofetil to be substituted (see Appendix 9: 
Mycophenolate dosing for equivalent dosing). 

EudraCT 2008-008553-27 
Sponsor: University of Oxford, UK 
 
3C_Protocol_V5.0_19122011.doc 
34 
4.2.3 Living donor transplant recipients 
If it is standard practice at a centre to commence immunosuppression prior to transplantation in 
recipients of living donor organs then this is acceptable and should be done according to local 
practice. In this instance it would not be necessary to stop tacrolimus for the first two post-operative 
days if allocated to receive CAMPATH-based induction therapy. 
 
4.2.4 Concomitant medications 
4.2.4.1 Infection prophylaxis 
All patients are to receive prophylactic treatment according to current local practice for: 
 
Pneumocystis carinii pneumoniae 
 
Oral fungal infection 
 
CMV 
 
4.2.4.2 Thrombosis prophylaxis 
Thrombosis prophylaxis should be commenced in all patients at the time of transplantation according 
to local practice. 
4.2.4.3 Dose modifications for neutropaenia 
 
Absolute 
neutrophil count 
(x 109/mm3) 
 
MPA12 dose 
 
Year 1 
Induction therapy 
After year 1 
Induction therapy 
 
Campath 
Basiliximab 
Campath  
Basiliximab  
> 2.0  
360mg bd 
540-720mg bd 
180mg bd 
540-720mg bd 
1.0 – 2.0 
180mg bd 
180mg bd 
180mg od 
180mg bd 
< 1.0 
stop 
stop 
stop 
stop 
 
This protocol does not specify any contraindicated medications, but local investigators will remain 
responsible for the management of the participant including all concomitant medications. The 
treatment schedules above are intended for guidance for the local investigator, and the detailed 
implementation remains their responsibility and will not be monitored by the coordinating centre. 
4.3 
Appendix 3: Transplant management 
4.3.1 Clinical management decisions 
As far as possible, general management of the patient (including rejection episodes, medical and 
surgical complications, side effects of treatments) remains the responsibility of the doctors responsible 
for patient care, and this study does not impose unnecessary restrictions on such clinical management 
decisions.  
 
                                               
12 If mycophenolate sodium cannot be prescribed for local reasons, a dispensation can be made to allow mycophenolate 
mofetil to be substituted (see Appendix 9: Mycophenolate dosing for equivalent dosing). 

EudraCT 2008-008553-27 
Sponsor: University of Oxford, UK 
3C_Protocol_V5.0_19122011.doc 
35 
In the case of rejection episodes, a biopsy would be strongly encouraged but not required by this 
protocol. 
 
4.3.1.1 Surgery 
Patients who are receiving sirolimus and require a surgical procedure may, if their managing 
consultant wishes, stop sirolimus up to one week prior to the procedure and use tacrolimus instead 
until two weeks after the procedure. At this point they should then switch back to sirolimus therapy 
(according to the procedure outline above in section 4.2.2). 

EudraCT 2008-008553-27 
Sponsor: University of Oxford, UK 
3C_Protocol_V5.0_19122011.doc 
36 
4.4 
Appendix 4: Study personnel 
 
Sponsor: 
 
 
University of Oxford 
 
 
 
 
University Offices, Wellington Square,OXFORD OX1 2JD 
 
Co-principal Investigators: Professor Peter Friend (Chief Investigator) 
 
 
 
 
Professor Colin Baigent 
 
 
 
 
Dr Paul Harden 
 
 
 
 
Dr Martin Landray 
 
 
 
 
Dr Richard Haynes (clinical coordinator) 
 
Steering committee:  
Professor Peter Friend (Chair) 
 
 
 
 
Professor Colin Baigent 
 
 
 
 
Prof James Neuberger 
 
 
 
 
Dr Martin Landray 
 
 
 
 
Dr Paul Harden 
 
 
 
 
Dr Richard Haynes 
 
 
 
 
Mr Sanjay Sinha (Oxford) 
 
 
 
 
Mr Hany Riad (Manchester) 
 
 
 
 
Mr Chris Watson (Cambridge) 
 
 
 
 
Dr Neil Sheerin (Newcastle) 
 
 
 
 
Mr Argiris Asderakis (Cardiff) 
 
 
 
 
Dr Peter Rowe (Plymouth) 
 
 
 
 
Mr Keith Rigg (Nottingham) 
 
 
 
 
Miss Laura Buist (Glasgow) 
 
 
 
 
Mr Murat Akyol (Edinburgh) 
 
 
 
 
Mr Chidambaram Nathan (Sheffield) 
 
 
 
 
Dr Chas Newstead (Leeds) 
 
 
 
 
Mr Abdul Hammad (Liverpool) 
 
 
 
 
Dr Paramit Chowdhury (Guy’s) 
 
 
 
 
Dr Gareth Jones (Royal Free) 
 
 
 
 
Mr Paul Gibbs (Portsmouth) 
 
 
 
 
Prof Sunil Bhandari (Hull) 
 
 
 
 
Mr Carmelo Puliatti (Royal London) 
 
 
 
 
Miss Nithya Krishnan (Coventry) 
 
 
 
 
Prof Iain Macdougall (King’s) 
 
 
 
 
Dr Adnan Sharif (Birmingham) 
 
 
 
 
Dr David Lewis (CTSU) 
 
 
 
 
Dr Will Herrington (CTSU) 
 
 
 
 
Ms Kathy Jayne (CTSU) 
 
 
 
 
Dr Michael Lay (CTSU) 
 
 
 
 
Mr Alex Baxter (CTSU) 
 
Data monitoring committee: 
 
 
 
 
Prof Peter Morris (chair) 
 
 
 
 
Dr Keith Wheatley 
 
 
 
 
Dr Daniel Abramowicz 
 
 
 
 
 
Statisticians (non-voting): Dr Jonathan Emberson and Ms Lisa Blackwell 

EudraCT 2008-008553-27 
Sponsor: University of Oxford, UK 
3C_Protocol_V5.0_19122011.doc 
37 
4.5 
Appendix 5: Organisational structure and responsibilities 
 
Principal Investigators 
The Principal Investigators have responsibility for: 
 
the design and conduct of the 3C study 
 
preparation of the protocol and subsequent revisions 
 
preparation of Standard Operating Procedures 
 
design, testing and documentation of all computer systems 
 
managing the coordinating centre 
 
organising meetings of the 3C Steering Committee 
 
publication of study reports 
 
The Chief Investigator has overall responsibility for these. 
 
Steering Committee 
The Steering Committee is responsible for: 
 
agreement of the final protocol 
 
reviewing progress of the study and, if necessary, agreeing to changes to the study protocol 
and/or Standard Operating Procedures to facilitate the success of the study 
 
reviewing new studies that may be of relevance to the 3C study 
 
Data Monitoring Committee 
The independent Data Monitoring Committee is responsible for: 
 
reviewing interim data from the 3C study according to the schedule set out in the Protocol 
 
advise the Steering Committee if, in their view, the randomised comparisons in the 3C study 
have provided both (i) “proof beyond reasonable doubt” that for all, or some specific types, of 
patient, use of CAMPATH and/or sirolimus is clearly indicated or clearly contraindicated; and 
(ii) evidence that might reasonably be expected to influence materially the patient management 
of many clinicians who are already aware of the main results of any other trials. 
 
Coordinating Centre 
The Coordinating Centre is responsible for the overall coordination of the 3C study. Its functions 
include: 
 
study planning, organisation of Steering Committee meetings 
 
contractual issues with Local Clinical Centres and budget administration 
 
design and maintenance of 3C study IT system 
 
provision of study materials 
 
assistance with local Research Governance applications 
 
auditing and monitoring progress of the study and Local Clinical Centres 
 
responding to technical, medical and administrative queries from the Local Clinical Centres 
 
liaison with the Data Monitoring Committee, regulatory and other outside agencies 
 
training Local Clinical Centre staff 
 
organisation of meetings of collaborators 
 
 
 

EudraCT 2008-008553-27 
Sponsor: University of Oxford, UK 
3C_Protocol_V5.0_19122011.doc 
38 
 
Local Clinical Centres 
The responsibilities of the Local Clinical Centre (LCC) lead investigator and LCC research staff will 
include: 
 
obtaining local Research Ethics Committee and Research Governance approval (aided by the 
Coordinating Centre) 
 
provision of access to appropriate hospital computer systems 
 
identification and recruitment of suitable patients 
 
liaising with consultant colleagues in LCC and referring hospitals 
 
conducting clinic procedures in accordance with the protocol and standard operating 
procedures 
 
dealing with routine enquiries from patients and their families 
 
obtaining appropriate information to confirm potential study endpoints 
 

EudraCT 2008-008553-27 
Sponsor: University of Oxford, UK 
 
3C_Protocol_V5.0_19122011.doc 
39 
4.6 
Appendix 6: Schedule of study procedures 
 
 
 
Visit 
Questionnaire 
 
 
Transplant 
surgery 
Discharge 
Month 
 
 
1 
3 
6 
9 
12 
24 
36 
48 
60 
Check eligibility 
• 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Medical history 
• 
• 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Informed consent 
• 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
First randomisation 
• 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Second randomisation 
 
 
 
 
• 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Quality of life assessment 
 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Laboratory results 
Renal function* 
 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Lipid profile† 
 
• 
 
 
• 
 
• 
 
 
 
 
FBC§ 
 
• 
 
• 
• 
• 
• 
 
 
 
 
Immunosuppressant 
level 
 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Urine 
protein:creatinine 
ratio 
 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
 
 
 
 
 
 
* serum creatinine 
† total cholesterol, HDL-cholesterol and triglycerides 
§ including white cell differential  

EudraCT 2008-008553-27 
Sponsor: University of Oxford, UK 
 
3C_Protocol_V5.0_19122011.doc 
40 
4.7 
Appendix 7: Specimen label for CAMPATH 
 
4.8 
Appendix 8: Guidelines for administration of CAMPATH 
4.8.1 Intravenous administration 
 
Available As: 30mg/1mL vial (alemtuzumab, MabCampath) 
 
Beware: No more that ONE vial per dose is required for this indication.  If you believe that more 
than ONE vial is required, please contact the coordinating centre (0800 585323) to discuss the 
dose.  
 
Reconstitution: 
 
 
N/A 
 
Administration: 
 
 
Add required dose to 60mL sodium chloride 0.9% and administer intravenously over 2 hours. 
Invert syringe to mix gently.  CAMPATH should be administered under the supervision of a 
doctor.  In order to assure complete delivery of CAMPATH, the line will be flushed with a 
minimum of 10mL 0.9% sodium chloride following completion of the CAMPATH infusion.  To 
do this, attach another syringe to the syringe pump and administer the solution at the same 
rate as the previous infusion 
 
 
During storage vials must be protected from light.  Once diluted, infusion does not need to be 
protected from light during 2 hour administration time.  However if not being administered 
immediately after dilution the infusion should be protected from light until it is administered, 
otherwise the antibody may start to deteriorate.  
 
For Clinical Trials Use Only  
CAMPATH, Calcineurin inhibitor reduction and Chronic allograft nephropathy 
(The 3C Study) 
 
EudraCT number 2008-008553-27 
Sponsor: University of Oxford, UK (Freefone 0800 585323) 
  
For use in trial: to be given intravenously as specified in trial protocol  
 
Chief investigator: Professor Peter Friend  
 
Patient name and identification number  
 
Date of supply  
 
 
 

EudraCT 2008-008553-27 
Sponsor: University of Oxford, UK 
3C_Protocol_V5.0_19122011.doc 
41 
If infusion related side-effects occur infusion time can be increased up to 8 hours from time of 
reconstitution of CAMPATH for infusion. 
 
 
Compatible Infusions: 
 
 
Sodium Chloride 0.9%. 
 
Cautions/Side Effects: 
 
Exercise caution in the handling and preparation of the solution. Gloves must be worn. There is 
no information relating to the use of CAMPATH in pregnancy.  As a precaution the company 
recommend it should not be handled by women who are pregnant or planning pregnancy.  
However the use of gloves will ensure there is no drug contact to staff.  Safety glasses should 
be worn to avoid exposure in case of breakage or spillage. 
 
  
 
Side-effects common with the first dose and include fever, rigors, headache, nausea, vomiting, 
rash, urticaria, pruritis, dyspnoea, hypotension and diarrhoea.  Infusion related fever commonly 
begins 5-6 hours after infusion starts. More severe reactions such as bronchospasm and 
severe hypotension have been seen in a few instances and late hypotension can occasionally 
be a problem.  
 
Thrombocytopenia most common during weeks 2-4 and neutropenia common between weeks 
4-8.  
 
Treatment of side-effects: 
Side effects can be controlled by slowing or temporarily stopping the infusion. 
Administer PRN medication (paracetamol PO, chlorphenamine IV, hydrocortisone IV) if 
necessary.   
Nebulised salbutamol may be required for bronchospasm.   
If hypotension develops, hydration with normal saline is indicated, unless 
contraindicated based on underlying cardiac status. 
 
Other information: 
The CAMPATH will be administered as soon as possible post-reperfusion of the transplanted organ, 
once patient is haemodynamically stable.  In some circumstances administration may be delayed until 
patient is in theatre recovery. 
 
IV methylprednisolone 500mg will be administered intraoperatively prior to organ reperfusion. 
 
15-30 minutes before administer CAMPATH give 10mg IV chlorphenamine. 
 
Give CAMPATH 30mg IV over 2 hours once patient is haemodynamically stable. CAMPATH 
infusion should be completed within 3 hours post organ reperfusion.  Where the patient is 
unstable and the administration is delayed, CAMPATH infusion must be complete within a 
maximum 6 hours after organ reperfusion. 
 

EudraCT 2008-008553-27 
Sponsor: University of Oxford, UK 
3C_Protocol_V5.0_19122011.doc 
42 
4.8.2 Subcutaneous administration 
 
First dose 
 
Methylprednisolone 500mg IV prior to reperfusion of first organ 
 
Chlorphenamine 10mg IV 15-30minutes before SC alemtuzumab  
 
Immediately after first organ reperfusion give 30mg/1mL SC CAMPATH 
 
Second dose (24 hours later) 
 
No pre-medication with steroid or antihistamine is generally necessary (but can be given at 
local investigators discretion) 
 
CAMPATH 30mg/1ml SC post transplant, 24 hours after first dose. 
 
Side effects with SC CAMPATH: local irritation (e.g. erythema, rash) at the injection site is common. 
 
4.9 
Appendix 9: Mycophenolate dosing 
The following table gives the equivalent doses of mycophenolate sodium and mycophenolate mofetil 
(which can be used if MPA is not available). 
 
Mycophenolate sodium 
Mycophenolate mofetil 
180 mg 
250 mg 
360 mg 
500 mg 
540 mg 
750 mg 
720 mg 
1000 mg 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4.10 Appendix 10: References 
 
1. 
Wolfe RA, Ashby VB, Milford EL, Ojo AO, Ettenger RE, Agodoa LYC, et al. Comparison of Mortality in 
All Patients on Dialysis, Patients on Dialysis Awaiting Transplantation, and Recipients of a First Cadaveric 
Transplant 
10.1056/NEJM199912023412303. N Engl J Med. 1999 December 2, 1999;341(23):1725-30. 
2. 
Meier-Kriesche HU, Schold JD, Kaplan B. Long-term renal allograft survival: have we made significant 
progress or is it time to rethink our analytic and therapeutic strategies? Am J Transplant. 2004 Aug;4(8):1289-95. 
3. 
Chapman JR, O'Connell PJ, Nankivell BJ. Chronic renal allograft dysfunction. J Am Soc Nephrol. 
2005;16(10):3015-26. 
4. 
Nankivell BJ, Borrows RJ, Fung CL, O'Connell PJ, Allen RD, Chapman JR. The natural history of 
chronic allograft nephropathy. N Engl J Med. 2003 Dec 11;349(24):2326-33. 
5. 
Ekberg H, Tedesco-Silva H, Demirbas A, Vitko S, Nashan B, Gurkan A, et al. Reduced exposure to 
calcineurin inhibitors in renal transplantation. N Engl J Med. 2007 Dec 20;357(25):2562-75. 

EudraCT 2008-008553-27 
Sponsor: University of Oxford, UK 
3C_Protocol_V5.0_19122011.doc 
43 
6. 
Stegall MD, Larson TS, Prieto M, Gloor J, Textor S, Nyberg S, et al. Kidney transplantation without 
calcineurin inhibitors using sirolimus. Transplant Proc. 2003;35(3 Suppl):125S-7S. 
7. 
Kahan BD. Efficacy of sirolimus compared with azathioprine for reduction of acute renal allograft 
rejection: a randomised multicentre study. The Rapamune US Study Group. Lancet. 2000;356(9225):194-202. 
8. 
Kandaswamy R, Melancon JK, Dunn T, Tan M, Casingal V, Humar A, et al. A prospective randomized 
trial of steroid-free maintenance regimens in kidney transplant recipients--an interim analysis. Am J Transplant. 
2005;5(6):1529-36. 
9. 
Webster AC, Lee VW, Chapman JR, Craig JC. Target of rapamycin inhibitors (sirolimus and everolimus) 
for primary immunosuppression of kidney transplant recipients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 
randomized trials. Transplantation. 2006;81(9):1234-48. 
10. 
Mulgaonkar S, Pearson TC, Patel A, Scandling J, Shidban H, Weir M, et al. Final Renal Function 
Outcomes from the Spare-the-Nephron (STN) Trial: Mycophenolate Mofetil (MMF)/Sirolimus (SRL) Maintenance 
Therapy and CNI Withdrawal in Renal Transplant Recipients. American Journal of Transplantation. 
2008;8(s2):177-336. 
11. 
Lebranchu Y, Thierry A, Toupance O, Westeel PF, Etienne I, Thervet E, et al. Efficacy on renal function 
of early conversion from cyclosporine to sirolimus 3 months after renal transplantation: concept study. Am J 
Transplant. 2009 May;9(5):1115-23. 
12. 
Mulay AV, Cockfield S, Stryker R, Fergusson D, Knoll GA. Conversion from calcineurin inhibitors to 
sirolimus for chronic renal allograft dysfunction: a systematic review of the evidence. Transplantation. 2006 Nov 
15;82(9):1153-62. 
13. 
Waldmann H. A personal history of the CAMPATH-1H antibody. Med Oncol. 2002;19 Suppl:S3-9. 
14. 
Hale G, Dyer MJ, Clark MR, Phillips JM, Marcus R, Riechmann L, et al. Remission induction in non-
Hodgkin lymphoma with reshaped human monoclonal antibody CAMPATH-1H. Lancet. 1988 Dec 
17;2(8625):1394-9. 
15. 
Kyle V, Roddy J, Hale G, Hazleman BL, Waldmann H. Humanized monoclonal antibody treatment in 
rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol. 1991 Nov;18(11):1737-8. 
16. 
Reiff A. A review of Campath in autoimmune disease: biologic therapy in the gray zone between 
immunosuppression and immunoablation. Hematology. 2005 Apr;10(2):79-93. 
17. 
Hale G, Xia MQ, Tighe HP, Dyer MJ, Waldmann H. The CAMPATH-1 antigen (CDw52). Tissue 
Antigens. 1990 Mar;35(3):118-27. 
18. 
Knechtle SJ, Fernandez LA, Pirsch JD, Becker BN, Chin LT, Becker YT, et al. Campath-1H in renal 
transplantation: The University of Wisconsin experience. Surgery. 2004 Oct;136(4):754-60. 
19. 
Friend PJ, Rebello P, Oliveira D, Manna V, Cobbold SP, Hale G, et al. Successful treatment of renal 
allograft rejection with a humanized antilymphocyte monoclonal antibody. Transplant Proc. 1995 Feb;27(1):869-
70. 
20. 
Watson CJ, Bradley JA, Friend PJ, Firth J, Taylor CJ, Bradley JR, et al. Alemtuzumab (CAMPATH 1H) 
induction therapy in cadaveric kidney transplantation--efficacy and safety at five years. Am J Transplant. 
2005;5(6):1347-53. 

EudraCT 2008-008553-27 
Sponsor: University of Oxford, UK 
3C_Protocol_V5.0_19122011.doc 
44 
21. 
Huang E, Cho Y, Shah T, Peng A, Hayashi R, Bunnapradist S. Alemtuzumab induction in deceased 
donor kidney transplantation: a multivariate analysis of the unos/ optn database. Transplantation. 2006;82(1 
Suppl 2):376. 
22. 
Huang E, Cho Y, Shah T, Peng A, Hayashi R, Bunnapradist S. Alemtuzumab induction in living donor 
kidney transplantation a multivariate analysis of the optn/ unos database. Transplantation. 2006;82(1 Suppl 
2):375-6. 
23. 
Vathsala A, Ona ET, Tan SY, Suresh S, Lou HX, 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. 
24. 
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. 
25. 
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 Jun 15;83(11):1509-12. 
26. 
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. 
Am J Transplant. 2008 Jul;8(7):1480-5. 
27. 
Morris PJ, Russell NK. Alemtuzumab (Campath-1H): a systematic review in organ transplantation. 
Transplantation. 2006 May 27;81(10):1361-7. 
28. 
Silveira FP, Marcos A, Kwak EJ, Husain S, Shapiro R, Thai N, et al. Bloodstream infections in organ 
transplant recipients receiving alemtuzumab: no evidence of occurrence of organisms typically associated with 
profound T cell depletion. J Infect. 2006 Oct;53(4):241-7. 
29. 
Malek SK, Obmann MA, Gotoff RA, Foltzer MA, Hartle JE, Potdar S. Campath-1H induction and the 
incidence of infectious complications in adult renal transplantation. Transplantation. 2006 Jan 15;81(1):17-20. 
30. 
Cherikh WS, Ring M, Kauffman M, Burke GW, Kaufman D, Knechtle SJ, et al. Dissociation of depletion 
and ptld in kidney recipients treated with alemzutumab induction therapy. Transplantation. 2006 Jul 15;82(1 
Suppl 2):240. 
31. 
Li Y, Zheng XX, Li XC, Zand MS, Strom TB. Combined costimulation blockade plus rapamycin but not 
cyclosporine produces permanent engraftment. Transplantation. 1998 Nov 27;66(10):1387-8. 
32. 
Matzinger P. Tolerance, danger, and the extended family. Annual review of immunology. 1994;12:991-
1045. 
33. 
Kirk AD, Mannon RB, Kleiner DE, Swanson JS, Kampen RL, Cendales LK, et al. Results from a human 
renal allograft tolerance trial evaluating T-cell depletion with alemtuzumab combined with deoxyspergualin. 
Transplantation. 2005;80(8):1051-9. 
34. 
Kirk AD, Hale DA, Mannon RB, Kleiner DE, Hoffmann SC, Kampen RL, et al. Results from a human 
renal allograft tolerance trial evaluating the humanized CD52-specific monoclonal antibody alemtuzumab 
(CAMPATH-1H). Transplantation. 2003;76(1):120-9. 
35. 
Tan HP, Kaczorowski DJ, Basu A, Unruh M, McCauley J, Wu C, et al. Living donor renal transplantation 
using alemtuzumab induction and tacrolimus monotherapy. Am J Transplant. 2006 Oct;6(10):2409-17. 

EudraCT 2008-008553-27 
Sponsor: University of Oxford, UK 
3C_Protocol_V5.0_19122011.doc 
45 
36. 
Barth RN, Janus CA, Lillesand CA, Radke NA, Pirsch JD, Becker BN, et al. Outcomes at 3 years of a 
prospective pilot study of Campath-1H and sirolimus immunosuppression for renal transplantation. Transpl Int. 
2006 Nov;19(11):885-92. 
37. 
Calne R, Moffatt SD, Friend PJ, Jamieson NV, Bradley JA, Hale G, et al. Prope tolerance with induction 
using Campath 1H and low-dose cyclosporin monotherapy in 31 cadaveric renal allograft recipients. Nippon 
Geka Gakkai Zasshi. 2000;101(3):301-6. 
38. 
Valmori D, Tosello V, Souleimanian NE, Godefroy E, Scotto L, Wang Y, et al. Rapamycin-mediated 
enrichment of T cells with regulatory activity in stimulated CD4+ T cell cultures is not due to the selective 
expansion of naturally occurring regulatory T cells but to the induction of regulatory functions in conventional 
CD4+ T cells. J Immunol. 2006 Jul 15;177(2):944-9. 
39. 
Wells AD, Li XC. Requirement for T-cell apoptosis in the induction of peripheral transplantation 
tolerance. Nat Med. 1999;5:1303. 
40. 
Sordi V, Bianchi G, Buracchi C, Mercalli A, Marchesi F, D'Amico G, et al. Differential effects of 
immunosuppressive drugs on chemokine receptor CCR7 in human monocyte-derived dendritic cells: selective 
upregulation by rapamycin. Transplantation. 2006 Sep 27;82(6):826-34. 
41. 
Bloom DD, Hu H, Fechner JH, Knechtle SJ. T-lymphocyte alloresponses of Campath-1H-treated kidney 
transplant patients. Transplantation. 2006;81(1):81-7. 
42. 
Pocock SJ, Simon R. Sequential treatment assignment with balancing for prognostic factors in the 
controlled clinical trial. Biometrics. 1975 Mar;31(1):103-15. 
43. 
Racusen LC, Solez K, Colvin RB, Bonsib SM, Castro MC, Cavallo T, et al. The Banff 97 working 
classification of renal allograft pathology. Kidney Int. 1999 Feb;55(2):713-23. 
44. 
Vanrenterghem Y, Ponticelli C, Morales JM, Abramowicz D, Baboolal K, Eklund B, et al. Prevalence and 
management of anemia in renal transplant recipients: a European survey. Am J Transplant. 2003 Jul;3(7):835-
45. 
45. 
Davidson J, Wilkinson A, Dantal J, Dotta F, Haller H, Hernandez D, et al. New-onset diabetes after 
transplantation: 2003 International consensus guidelines. Proceedings of an international expert panel meeting. 
Barcelona, Spain, 19 February 2003. Transplantation. 2003 May 27;75(10 Suppl):SS3-24.