Multivariable analysis of impact of mismatch pairs for sever aGVHD in HLA-A and -C
| Mismatch combination, donor-patient . | N . | HR (95% CI) . | P . |
|---|---|---|---|
| A locus match | 4510 | 1 | NA |
| A0201-A0206 | 138 | 1.23 (0.87-1.73) | .223 |
| A0206-A0201 | 131 | 1.78 (1.32-2.41) | < .001 |
| A0201-A0207 | 28 | 0.83 (0.34-2.03) | .699 |
| A0207-A0201 | 20 | 1.12 (0.42-3.02) | .809 |
| A0201-A0210 | 11 | 1.57 (0.58-4.23) | .367 |
| A0206-A0207 | 27 | 3.45 (2.09-5.70) | < .001 |
| A0207-A0206 | 22 | 0.71 (0.23-2.24) | .571 |
| A2402-A2420 | 60 | 0.64 (0.32-1.30) | .225 |
| A2420-A2402 | 30 | 1.18 (0.56-2.49) | .66 |
| A2601-A2602 | 24 | 0.64 (0.26-1.58) | .34 |
| A2602-A2601 | 21 | 3.35 (1.89-5.91) | < .001 |
| A2601-A2603 | 34 | 1.37 (0.73-2.57) | .326 |
| A2603-A2601 | 35 | 2.17 (1.29-3.64) | .003 |
| A2602-A2603 | 10 | 1.23 (0.30-4.98) | .763 |
| A2603-A2602 | 12 | 1.50 (0.48-4.68) | .485 |
| A other mismatch | 97 | 1.47 (1.00-2.15) | .047 |
| C locus match | 3685 | 1 | NA |
| C0102-C0303 | 30 | 2.83 (1.50-5.32) | .001* |
| C0303-C0102 | 38 | 1.05 (0.47-2.36) | .899 |
| C0102-C0304 | 12 | 1.85 (0.59-5.81) | .287 |
| C0304-C0102 | 19 | 0.89 (0.28-2.79) | .854 |
| C0102-C0401 | 14 | 1.87 (0.77-4.55) | .164 |
| C0102-C0803 | 24 | 1.97 (0.87-4.42) | .099 |
| C0803-C0102 | 10 | 1.66 (0.53-5.19) | .383 |
| C0102-C1402 | 16 | 3.86 (1.98-7.51) | < .001* |
| C1402-C0102 | 13 | 0.46 (0.06-3.33) | .45 |
| C0303-C0304 | 83 | 1.08 (0.63-1.85) | .761 |
| C0304-C0303 | 62 | 0.83 (0.41-1.68) | .614 |
| C0303-C0401 | 31 | 1.73 (0.89-3.36) | .103 |
| C0401-C0303 | 42 | 2.81 (1.72-4.60) | < .001 |
| C0303-C0702 | 25 | 1.16 (0.52-2.62) | .706 |
| C0702-C0303 | 18 | 2.16 (0.96-4.85) | .062 |
| C0303-C0801 | 76 | 1.07 (0.63-1.84) | .782 |
| C0801-C0303 | 80 | 2.32 (1.58-3.40) | < .001 |
| C0303-C1502 | 25 | 3.22 (1.75-5.89) | < .001 |
| C0304-C0401 | 15 | 3.02 (1.34-6.79) | .007 |
| C0401-C0304 | 12 | 6.22 (3.07-12.5) | < .001* |
| C0304-C0702 | 26 | 2.35 (1.16-4.76) | .017 |
| C0702-C0304 | 33 | 1.22 (0.58-2.59) | .59 |
| C0304-C0801 | 69 | 2.34 (1.55-3.52) | < .001 |
| C0801-C0304 | 47 | 1.64 (0.98-2.76) | .057 |
| C0304-C1402 | 28 | 3.06 (1.68-5.60) | < .001* |
| C1402-C0304 | 23 | 3.66 (2.00-6.68) | < .001 |
| C0304-C1502 | 53 | 1.82 (1.08-3.05) | .023 |
| C1502-C0304 | 27 | 3.77 (2.20-6.47) | < .001 |
| C0801-C0102 | 10 | 2.88 (0.92-9.03) | .068 |
| C0801-C0803 | 27 | 1.55 (0.69-3.48) | .284 |
| C0803-C0801 | 26 | 2.04 (1.04-3.99) | .037 |
| C0801-C1502 | 36 | 1.59 (0.79-3.21) | .19 |
| C1502-C0801 | 23 | 2.28 (1.07-4.85) | .031 |
| C1402-C1502 | 55 | 1.67 (1.01-2.77) | .043 |
| C1502-C1402 | 50 | 4.97 (3.41-7.25) | < .001 |
| C other mismatch | 347 | 1.69 (1.34-2.14) | < .001 |
| Mismatch combination, donor-patient . | N . | HR (95% CI) . | P . |
|---|---|---|---|
| A locus match | 4510 | 1 | NA |
| A0201-A0206 | 138 | 1.23 (0.87-1.73) | .223 |
| A0206-A0201 | 131 | 1.78 (1.32-2.41) | < .001 |
| A0201-A0207 | 28 | 0.83 (0.34-2.03) | .699 |
| A0207-A0201 | 20 | 1.12 (0.42-3.02) | .809 |
| A0201-A0210 | 11 | 1.57 (0.58-4.23) | .367 |
| A0206-A0207 | 27 | 3.45 (2.09-5.70) | < .001 |
| A0207-A0206 | 22 | 0.71 (0.23-2.24) | .571 |
| A2402-A2420 | 60 | 0.64 (0.32-1.30) | .225 |
| A2420-A2402 | 30 | 1.18 (0.56-2.49) | .66 |
| A2601-A2602 | 24 | 0.64 (0.26-1.58) | .34 |
| A2602-A2601 | 21 | 3.35 (1.89-5.91) | < .001 |
| A2601-A2603 | 34 | 1.37 (0.73-2.57) | .326 |
| A2603-A2601 | 35 | 2.17 (1.29-3.64) | .003 |
| A2602-A2603 | 10 | 1.23 (0.30-4.98) | .763 |
| A2603-A2602 | 12 | 1.50 (0.48-4.68) | .485 |
| A other mismatch | 97 | 1.47 (1.00-2.15) | .047 |
| C locus match | 3685 | 1 | NA |
| C0102-C0303 | 30 | 2.83 (1.50-5.32) | .001* |
| C0303-C0102 | 38 | 1.05 (0.47-2.36) | .899 |
| C0102-C0304 | 12 | 1.85 (0.59-5.81) | .287 |
| C0304-C0102 | 19 | 0.89 (0.28-2.79) | .854 |
| C0102-C0401 | 14 | 1.87 (0.77-4.55) | .164 |
| C0102-C0803 | 24 | 1.97 (0.87-4.42) | .099 |
| C0803-C0102 | 10 | 1.66 (0.53-5.19) | .383 |
| C0102-C1402 | 16 | 3.86 (1.98-7.51) | < .001* |
| C1402-C0102 | 13 | 0.46 (0.06-3.33) | .45 |
| C0303-C0304 | 83 | 1.08 (0.63-1.85) | .761 |
| C0304-C0303 | 62 | 0.83 (0.41-1.68) | .614 |
| C0303-C0401 | 31 | 1.73 (0.89-3.36) | .103 |
| C0401-C0303 | 42 | 2.81 (1.72-4.60) | < .001 |
| C0303-C0702 | 25 | 1.16 (0.52-2.62) | .706 |
| C0702-C0303 | 18 | 2.16 (0.96-4.85) | .062 |
| C0303-C0801 | 76 | 1.07 (0.63-1.84) | .782 |
| C0801-C0303 | 80 | 2.32 (1.58-3.40) | < .001 |
| C0303-C1502 | 25 | 3.22 (1.75-5.89) | < .001 |
| C0304-C0401 | 15 | 3.02 (1.34-6.79) | .007 |
| C0401-C0304 | 12 | 6.22 (3.07-12.5) | < .001* |
| C0304-C0702 | 26 | 2.35 (1.16-4.76) | .017 |
| C0702-C0304 | 33 | 1.22 (0.58-2.59) | .59 |
| C0304-C0801 | 69 | 2.34 (1.55-3.52) | < .001 |
| C0801-C0304 | 47 | 1.64 (0.98-2.76) | .057 |
| C0304-C1402 | 28 | 3.06 (1.68-5.60) | < .001* |
| C1402-C0304 | 23 | 3.66 (2.00-6.68) | < .001 |
| C0304-C1502 | 53 | 1.82 (1.08-3.05) | .023 |
| C1502-C0304 | 27 | 3.77 (2.20-6.47) | < .001 |
| C0801-C0102 | 10 | 2.88 (0.92-9.03) | .068 |
| C0801-C0803 | 27 | 1.55 (0.69-3.48) | .284 |
| C0803-C0801 | 26 | 2.04 (1.04-3.99) | .037 |
| C0801-C1502 | 36 | 1.59 (0.79-3.21) | .19 |
| C1502-C0801 | 23 | 2.28 (1.07-4.85) | .031 |
| C1402-C1502 | 55 | 1.67 (1.01-2.77) | .043 |
| C1502-C1402 | 50 | 4.97 (3.41-7.25) | < .001 |
| C other mismatch | 347 | 1.69 (1.34-2.14) | < .001 |
A0206-A0201 mismatch combination meant that the donor has HLA-A*0206, recipient has HLA-A*0201 and another HLA-A allele of each donor and recipient was identical. Each mismatch pair in HLA-A was compared with the HLA-A allele match, and each mismatch pair in HLA-C was compared with the HLA-C allele match. Confounders considered were sex (donor-recipient pairs), patient age (linear), donor age (linear), type of disease, risk of leukemia relapse (standard, high and diseases other than leukemia), GVHD prophylaxis, (CSP vs. FK), ATG (ATG vs. no ATG) and preconditioning (TBI vs non-TBI).
HR denotes hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; NA, not applicable.
The result of base analysis was significant, but the result of validating analysis using bootstrap resampling was not. The results of the analysis were thus judged not to be statistically significant.