. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2019 May 28.

Published in final edited form as: Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2017 Jun 23;64(12):10.1002/pbc.26689. doi: 10.1002/pbc.26689

TABLE 2.

Measures of HbF during the intervention by the subject group

	HbF			Percentage decrease from Personal best HbF
HbF or decrease from Personal best	Intervention (n =18^b)	Control (n =10)	P value	Intervention (n =18)	Control (n =10)	P value	P value^c
Historical Personal best HbF	17.3 ± 7.7	16.6 ± 3.5	0.88
Study month: 0	13.4 ± 6.1	10.5 ± 5.2	0.25	−18.1 ± 23.6	−42.6 ± 21.3	0.009
2	14.5 ± 7.0	11.4 ± 4.4	0.33	−14.7 ± 24.9	−40.8 ± 18.7	0.10	0.77
4	16.4 ± 7.4	12.3 ± 5.0	0.16	−2.7 ± 41.8	−34.3 ± 24.2	0.14	0.30
6	15.4 ± 7.6	12.1 ± 6.1	0.24	−13.2 ± 29.7	−32.9 ± 31.5	0.29	0.83
Proportion of days covered (PDC)^a	n = 18	n = 8	P value
During year prestudy	64.6 ± 32.6	79.2 ± 28.2	0.15
At study completion	75.6 ± 20.7	82.9 ± 20.5	0.33

For HbF values expressed as percent decreased from each patients’ Personal best HbF, a growth model, controlling for group assignment and time, was used to compare intervention patients to the controls. For HU proportion of days covered, values shown were derived from pharmacy refill data. Mean values are shown ± standard deviation.

For poststudy HU refill data, n = 14 for the intervention group.

For months 4 and 6, n = 16 for the intervention group and n = 9 for the control group.

Adjusting for study group and time. Bold P value means statistical significance.