Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2023 Apr 23.
Published in final edited form as: Transplant Cell Ther. 2020 Dec 16;27(4):308.e1–308.e8. doi: 10.1016/j.jtct.2020.12.010

Table 2.

Patient Characteristics for TMA Cases versus Non-TMA Matched Controls

Characteristic TA-TMA Cases (N = 13) Non-TMA Matched Controls (N = 25) P Value
Age, yr, median (IQR) 50 (45–53) 50 (40–58) .89
Female sex, % (n) 38 (5) 48 (12) .73
Disease, % (n)
 Myeloid 62 (8) 76 (19) .18
 Lymphoid 23 (3) 23 (6)
 Nonmalignant 15 (2) 0 (0)
Donor, % (n)
 Mismatched 54 (7) 40 (10) .50
Regimen, % (n)
 Myeloablative 77 (10) 80 (20) 1.00
Previous autologous HCT, % (n) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1.00
GVHD prophylaxis, % (n)
 Tacrolimus 62 (8) 60 (15) .87
 Cyclosporine 38 (5) 32 (8)
 Cyclophosphamide 0 (0) 8 (2)
 Sirolimus + CNI 0 (0) 0 (0)
aGVHD onset, d, median (IQR)* 21 (11–34) 21 (16–31) .71
aGVHD grade, % (n)*
 II 69 (9) 76 (19) .85
 III 8 (1) 8 (2)
 IV 23 (3) 16 (4)
aGVHD type, % (n)
 Gut 77 (10) 84 (21) .67
 Skin 62 (8) 64 (16) 1.00
 Liver 23 (3) 24 (6) 1.00
aGVHD treatment, % (n)
 Systemic corticosteroid 100 (13) 96 (24)
 Second-line (steroid-refractory) 31 (4) 16 (4) .41
TMA onset, d, median (IQR) 37 (23–80) N/A N/A

N/A indicates not applicable.

*

These are the matching variables of the study.

aGVHD types are not mutually exclusive.

Second-line treatment included antithymocyte globulin, infliximab, alemtuzumab, or mycophenolate.