Multivariable logistic regression analysis for day 28 clinical response after initiation of second line therapy for acute GVHD
| . | . | Day 28 response . | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR . | 95% CI . | P value . | ||
| Age (y) | ≤60 vs >60 | 0.86 | (0.39-1.88) | .71 |
| Sex | Male vs female | 1.88 | (0.87-4.03) | .11 |
| Indication for HCT | AML/MDS vs other | 0.87 | (0.43-1.76) | .69 |
| Donor type | Unrelated vs related | 0.87 | (0.39-1.95) | .74 |
| HLA match | Mismatched vs matched | 3.22 | (0.95-10.90) | .06 |
| Stem cell source | Peripheral blood vs BM | 1.16 | (0.45-3.01) | .75 |
| Stem cell source | Cord blood vs BM | 0.59 | (0.07-4.76) | .62 |
| Conditioning regimen intensity | Reduced-intensity vs myeloablative | 0.84 | (0.39-1.81) | .66 |
| GVHD prophylaxis | Non-CNI-based vs CNI-based | 2.88 | (0.87-9.58) | .08 |
| Median days from steroids to second line therapy | <14 d vs ≥14 d | 1.70 | (0.83-3.47) | .15 |
| GVHD Grade at second line therapy | 0 to 2 vs 3 to 4 | 3.22 | (1.55-6.70) | .0018 |
| MAP at second line therapy | Low vs high | 2.09 | (1.02-4.28) | .043 |
| Second line treatment | Ruxolitinib vs no ruxolitinib | 2.75 | (1.26-6.00) | .011 |
| Year of systemic GVHD therapy | 2019 to 2021 vs 2016 to 2018 | 1.17 | (0.54-2.54) | .68 |
| . | . | Day 28 response . | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR . | 95% CI . | P value . | ||
| Age (y) | ≤60 vs >60 | 0.86 | (0.39-1.88) | .71 |
| Sex | Male vs female | 1.88 | (0.87-4.03) | .11 |
| Indication for HCT | AML/MDS vs other | 0.87 | (0.43-1.76) | .69 |
| Donor type | Unrelated vs related | 0.87 | (0.39-1.95) | .74 |
| HLA match | Mismatched vs matched | 3.22 | (0.95-10.90) | .06 |
| Stem cell source | Peripheral blood vs BM | 1.16 | (0.45-3.01) | .75 |
| Stem cell source | Cord blood vs BM | 0.59 | (0.07-4.76) | .62 |
| Conditioning regimen intensity | Reduced-intensity vs myeloablative | 0.84 | (0.39-1.81) | .66 |
| GVHD prophylaxis | Non-CNI-based vs CNI-based | 2.88 | (0.87-9.58) | .08 |
| Median days from steroids to second line therapy | <14 d vs ≥14 d | 1.70 | (0.83-3.47) | .15 |
| GVHD Grade at second line therapy | 0 to 2 vs 3 to 4 | 3.22 | (1.55-6.70) | .0018 |
| MAP at second line therapy | Low vs high | 2.09 | (1.02-4.28) | .043 |
| Second line treatment | Ruxolitinib vs no ruxolitinib | 2.75 | (1.26-6.00) | .011 |
| Year of systemic GVHD therapy | 2019 to 2021 vs 2016 to 2018 | 1.17 | (0.54-2.54) | .68 |
Bold values indicate statistical significance P < 0.05.
CI, confidence interval; OR, odds ratio.