Table 5.

Logistic regression for factors associated with the levels of autoantibodies.

Characteristics	Contrast	Univariable			Multivariable
		OR estimate	95% CI	P	OR estimate	95% CI	P
Age	≤30 vs. >30	0.97	0.41–2.31	0.95
Gender	Male vs. Female	0.88	0.35–2.23	0.79
Primary diseasea	ALL vs. AML vs. Others	0.81	0.38–1.72	0.59
Conditioning regimenb	Myeloablative vs. Intensified	0.92	0.31–2.70	0.88
HLA typing	Matched vs. Mismatched	0.31	0.12–0.82	<0.05	0.63	0.04–11.30	0.76
Source of graft	BM+PBSC vs. PBSC	3.86	1.50–9.93	<0.01	1.99	0.18–21.95	0.57
GVHD prophylaxisc	ATG based vs. Non-ATG based	4.33	1.70–11.03	<0.01	1.14	0.18–7.32	0.89
Acute GVHD grade	0–I vs. II–IV	1.48	0.56–3.93	0.43
Chronic GVHD grade	No vs. Mild vs. Moderate/Severe	3.80	2.15–6.71	<0.001	3.65	1.93–6.92	<0.001

OR, odds ratio; 95% CI, 95% confidence interval; ALL, acute lymphoblastic leukemia; AML, acute myeloid leukemia; HLA, human leukocyte antigen; BM, bone marrow; PBSC, peripheral blood stem cell; GVHD, graft-vs.-host disease; ATG, antithymocyte globulin.

^aThe other category included aplastic anemia, myelodysplastic syndrome, and lymphoma.

^bMyeloablative conditioning regimens include TBI (total body irradiation) + Cy (cyclophosphamide), Bu (busulfan)+ Cy, and Bu + Flu (fludarabine). Intensified conditioning regimens include TBI + Cy + etoposide, and Flu + cytarabine + TBI + Cy.

^cNon-ATG based GVHD prophylaxis include cyclosporine A (CsA), methotrexate (MTX), and mycophenolate mofetil (MMF). ATG based GVHD prophylaxis include CsA + MTX + MMF + ATG.