The results showed that the rate of RGF was significantly lower in the patients receiving NAC vs. placebo (21.4% vs. 50%). RGF is a common complication affecting renal grafts immediately post-transplantation and the clinical course of the patients with RGF is not as smooth as those recipients who have IGF. (
5) Studies have used various time points and criteria in their definition of reduced graft function post-transplantation (
24,
25). The conventional definition of DGF is the requirement for dialysis within the first week after renal transplantation. (
26) In a study by Rodrigo et al DGF and SGF were defined as a CRR ≤30% with or without dialysis, respectively, on day 2 post-transplantation (
25). Boom et al defined DGF when the serum creatinine remained unchanged, increased or decreased <10% per day on three consecutive days in the first week post-transplantation (
24). Taking all this into consideration, the definition we used for RGF, which included DGF and SGF (CRR at day 7 post-transplantation of ≤70% with or without dialysis, respectively), incorporated all these definitions. Considering the rates of DGF and SGF separately, the former was not statistically different between the NAC and placebo groups (17.8% vs. 13.7%, respectively), however, the latter was substantially lower in the NAC group (3.6% vs. 36.3%). Overall, as stated above, the rate of RGF (DGF+SGF) was considerably lower in the NAC group. One of the possible mechanisms of reduced graft function is the ischemic damage to the graft before and during harvesting and is further aggravated by the reperfusion phase (
27). The results from this study corroborate the findings by other studies that NAC has promising effects in reducing tubular injury and improving graft function. (
12) The mechanism by which NAC improves the graft function primarily involves the scavenging of oxygen-free radicals, either directly or by increasing intracellular concentrations of glutathione, and vasodilation by increasing nitric oxide. The reported adverse effects were mild and transient and not statistically different between the two groups. Other trials of NAC also found no concern about its adverse effects (
13,
28). The measurement of p-NGAL levels showed that the patients in the NAC group had significantly greater reduction of p-NGAL by both days 1 and 5 post-transplantation than those in the placebo group. The analysis showed that the patients in the placebo group had only 7.3% reduction in the p-NGAL levels by day 1 and 23.8% reduction by day 5. However, the patients receiving NAC achieved considerably faster reduction by day 1 (22.2%) and their p-NGAL reduced to almost half by day 5 (49.1%). The results thus showed that NAC can reduce tubular injury immediately after transplantation, evidenced by significantly lower levels of p-NGAL in the NAC group. A notable finding from comparing p-NGAL levels on day 1 and rate of IGF between the two groups was that p-NGAL may be considered as an early marker for immediate graft function. In the NAC group where the rate of IGF was considerably higher, the p-NGAL level dropped rapidly on day 1. In contrast, the placebo group, where the rate of IGF was lower, had modest drop in p-NGAL level on day 1. Several studies found that the p-NGAL measured within 24 h after transplantation correlates with the rate of IGF. Thus, the findings from this trial support other studies in that p-NGAL is an early and more specific marker for tubular injury and graft function (
21). A near steady-state eGFR level was reached by week 1 in the NAC group, followed by a stable trend to week 12; however, the improvement of eGFR was significantly slower in the placebo group and a near steady-state was only achieved by week 4. In addition, the eGFR levels were always higher in the NAC than the placebo group. Comparing the trend of eGFR between the two groups showed that NAC led to faster and more sustained graft recovery during the first 12 weeks post-transplantation. Given NAC is safe and well-tolerated, higher dose and duration of its administration may be considered. A study by Sahraei et al on short-term administration of NAC (three doses of 600 mg NAC) did not show significant improvement in the graft function in renal transplant recipients. (
28) On the other hand, the findings from the current study, also by Danilovic et al showed that 600 mg NAC consumed twice daily in the first week post-transplantation significantly improved tubular injury and graft function (
12). In our study, the reduction of p-NGAL and rise of eGFR measured during the first week were significantly faster in the NAC vs. placebo group. However, from week 2, the difference between the two groups in the eGFR was nonsignificant. The notable efficacy of NAC in the first week and the plateaued effects thereafter opens an interesting debate on longer duration of NAC administration. In addition, since NAC undergoes extensive first-pass hepatic metabolism, its oral bioavailability is relatively poor (
29). Therefore, future studies may also assess the effect of higher doses of oral NAC, such as 1200 mg which is commonly used in the prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy (
29). The study had several limitations. First, it was a single center study. Second, the sample size was relatively small due to limited resources, however, statistically significant results were obtained for both primary and secondary outcomes, which shows that the results would be applicable to larger population. Third, preemptive renal transplantation and the patients receiving induction polyclonal antibody were excluded from study entrance in order to recruit a homogeneous population. The former patients have generally favorable graft outcomes than those undergoing maintenance hemodialysis before transplantation. The latter group was excluded to standardize the immunosuppressive regimen among study participants. Fourth, oxidative stress biomarkers were not assessed in the study. Nevertheless, there is a large body of evidence on the antioxidant and vasodilatory effects of NAC (
10,
12,
30). Fifth, the follow-up was limited to 12 weeks, hence long-term graft survival was not assessed. Sixth, DGF is a multifactorial process in which several parameters can causes it such as many cytokines, chemokines, neutrophil activation, oxidant injury, etc. Between them, oxidant injury has a significant and comprehensive role (
31,
32). Hence, we employed this indicator to evaluate the DGF. But the role of other factors should not be forgotten and they should be assessed in future researchers. In conclusion, the findings from this study showed that NAC has promising potential in reducing tubular injury and improving graft function. This was evidenced by significant reduction in the rate of RGF and levels of p-NGAL and increase in early-phase eGFR in the NAC group.