Skip to main content
. 2022 Jan 2;12(1):27. doi: 10.3390/jpm12010027

Table 2.

Outcome predictive factors.

Responders
(CGI-I = 2)
n = 27
Partial Responders (CGI-I = 3)
n = 15
Non-Responders (CGI-I > 3)
n = 3
Odds Ratio of a Good Outcome (95% Confidence Interval) (Wald χ) p-Value
Age 70 (49–82) 78 (68–85) 73 (65–77) 0.847 (0.730–0.982) (4.856) 0.028
Male, n (%) 19 (70.4) 8 (53.3) 2 (66.7) 6.194 (0.924–41.505) (3.530) 0.060
Number of doses 7 (5–9) 6 (5–8) 7 (5–8) 1.010 (0.472–2.159) (0.001) 0.980
BK 23.2 (8.9–37.3) 22.4 (13.4–30.4) 28.3 (16.6–36.3) 0.974 (0.783–1.212) (0.057) 0.812
DK 4.5 (0.6–46.3) 4.6 (1.1–17.9) 5.5 (0.8–11.4) 0.976 (0.764–1.246) (0.039) 0.844
FDS 11.7 (4.5–25.8) 12.2 (7.9–20.6) 9.3 (5.7−10.6) 1.124 (0.699–1.806) (0.232) 0.630
PTT (%) 0.9 (0.1–46.5) 0.5 (0.1–0.3) 0.6 (0.1–0.9) 1.255 (0.692–2.276) (0.559) 0.455
OM ON-time 11 (8–16) 12 (4−16) 12 (12–16) 1.449 (0.898–2.339) (2.309) 0.129
No OM OFF, n (%) 5 (18.5) 5 (31.1) 3 (100) 0.055 (0.003–0.884) (4.188) 0.041
LED24h, mg 1235 (677–2267) 1184 (712–3034) 1514 (1308–2300) 0.240 1 (0.018–3.278) (1.144) 0.285

1 The natural logarithms of the LED values were used in the regression model, but absolute values are given for the three outcome groups in the table.