Skip to main content
. 2020 Dec 15;32(2):502–516. doi: 10.1681/ASN.2020050645

Table 2.

Results of primary and sensitivity analyses of eGFR at month 24

Intervention, Mean (95% CI) Control, Mean (95% CI) Intervention Minus Control, Mean Diff (95% CI) P Value
ITT population
 eGFR (Filler and coworkers18) 61.8 (45.3 to 78.2) 60.1 (44.1 to 76.0) 1.7 (−10.2 to 13.6) 0.77
 eGFR (CKiD19) 69.2 (53.1 to 85.3) 68.8 (53.4 to 84.2) 0.4 (−11.2 to 12.0) 0.95
Population A
 eGFR (Filler and coworkers18) 62.7 (45.8 to 79.7) 61.49 (44.8 to 78.1) 1.2 (−11.2 to 13.6) 0.84
 eGFR (CKiD19) 70.0 (53.4 to 86.6) 70.24 (54.2 to 86.3) −0.2 (−12.3 to 11.8) 0.97
Population B
 eGFR (Filler and coworkers18) 66.2 (50.7 to 81.7) 60.8 (46.0 to 75.6) 5.4 (−6.4 to 17.3) 0.36
 eGFR (CKiD19) 74.1 (59.2 to 89.0) 69.1 (55.1 to 83.1) 5.1 (−6.3 to 16.4) 0.38
Population C
 eGFR (Filler and coworkers18) 61.9 (46.7 to 77.2) 59.4 (44.5 to 74.2) 2.6 (−8.4 to 13.6) 0.64
 eGFR (CKiD19) 69.6 (54.6 to 84.6) 68.2 (53.9 to 82.6) 1.4 (−9.4 to 12.2) 0.80

Displayed are means and mean differences (Mean Diffs) with respective 95% CIs and P values from the analysis of covariance model including baseline eGFR, CMV prophylaxis, and study site.