Table 3.
Univariable analysis of patient characteristics and clinical outcome within the SIB cohort.
| Outcome parameter | MiHA disparity | Univariable analysis | Multivariable analysis | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR (95% CI) | P-value | Confounding risk factors | HR (95% CI) | P-value | ||
| aGVHD gr 3–4 | HY | 4.80 (2.00–11.20) | <0.001 | Patient age, diagnosis, year of transplantation, stem cell source, conditioning regimen | 4.20 (1.60–10.90) | 0.004 |
| MiHA | 1.10 (0.50–2.50) | 0.74 | NA | NA | NA | |
|
| ||||||
| cGVHD lim/ext | HY | 1.30 (0.70–2.20) | 0.44 | NA | NA | NA |
| MiHA | 1.01 (0.63–1.67) | 0.96 | NA | NA | NA | |
|
| ||||||
| Time to relapse | HY | 0.58 (0.35–0.98) | 0.04 | Diagnosis, year of transplantation, stem cell source, conditioning regimen | 0.65 (0.40–1.08) | 0.095 |
| MiHA | 0.77 (0.53–1.11) | 0.16 | Diagnosis, year of transplantation, stem cell source, conditioning regimen | 0.77 (0.50–1.11) | 0.14 | |
|
| ||||||
| RFS | HY | 0.75 (0.49–1.16) | 0.20 | Patient age, diagnosis, year of transplantation, stem cell source, conditioning regimen | 0.81 (0.52–1.27) | 0.35 |
| MiHA | 0.73 (0.52–1.03) | 0.07 | Patient age, diagnosis, year of transplantation, stem cell source, conditioning regimen | 0.68 (0.48–0.98) | 0.04 | |
|
| ||||||
| OS | HY | 0.90 (0.52–1.55) | 0.70 | NA | NA | NA |
| MiHA | 0.88 (0.56–1.35) | 0.56 | NA | NA | NA | |
|
| ||||||
| NRM | HY | 1.30 (0.70–2.70) | 0.43 | NA | NA | NA |
| MiHA | 0.59 (0.29–1.25) | 0.13 | Patient age, year of transplantation, CMV seropositive, aGVHD grade 2–4 | 0.59 (0.29–1.25) | 0.19 | |
Abbreviations: aGVHD, acute graft-versus-host-disease; cGVHD, chronic graft-versus-host-disease; RFS, relapse-free survival; OS, overall survival; NRM, non-relapse mortality; CMV, cytomegalovirus; CI, confidence interval; MiHA, minor histocompatibility antigen; NA, not applicable. Associations with OS and RFS were analyzed using Kaplan Meier curves and log-rank tests. Associations with cumulative incidences of aGVHD, cGVHD, relapse and NRM were estimated respecting the presence of competing risks using the Gray test. Furthermore, in case a P-value was ≤0.20 in univariable analyses, Cox regression analyses (for the endpoints OS and RFS) and Fine and Gray regression analyses (for the endpoints aGVHD, cGVHD, relapse and NRM) were used to adjust for known confounding risk factors.