Table 2.
RTW status at one-year follow-up with comparison of LC arm and control arm
| RTW status at one year1 n = 244 | RTW during one year follow4 up n = 244 | Relapsed patients at one year5 | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes n (%) | No n (%) | OR (95% CI) | OR adjusted (95% CI)2 | OR adjusted (95% CI)3 | Yes n (%) | No n (%) | Yes n (%) | P-value | |
| Control arm | 86 (69) | 39 (31) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 104 (83) | 21 (17) | 18 | 0.87 |
| LC arm | 77 (65) | 42 (35) | 0.83* (0.49-1.42) | 0.78** (0.45-1.34) | 0.76*** (0.43-1.31) | 95 (80) | 24 (20) | 18 | |
| Total | 163 | 66 | 199 | 45 | 36 | ||||
1Frequencies and percentages analysed using logistic regression. Crude and adjusted odds ratios (OR)
2Adjusted for stratification variables: gender, diagnosis and hospital unit
3Adjusted for stratification variables: gender, diagnosis and hospital unit and age
4RTW during one year follow up by frequencies and percentages
5Comparison of relapsed patients across LC arm and control arm using chi-square test
* P-value = 0.50, **0.37, ***0.32