Table 4.

Cox regression on EBV-related complications


Factor

Relative risk (95% CI)

P
Conditioning   
   Myeloablative*  1.0   
   Nonmyeloablative, without ATG   0.7 (0.1-6.5)   .51  
   Nonmyeloablative, with ATG   15.4 (2.0-116.1)   <.01  
CMV serostatus   
   Positive*  1.0   
   Negative   3.0 (0.9-9.7)   .07  
HLA, engrafted in doubles   
   6 of 6   1.0   
   5 of 6   0.2 (0.1-1.5)   .12  
   3-4 of 6   0.9 (0.2-4.7)   .94  
No. of donors   
   1   1.0   
   2
 
0.4 (0.1-2.4)
 
.29
 

Factor

Relative risk (95% CI)

P
Conditioning   
   Myeloablative*  1.0   
   Nonmyeloablative, without ATG   0.7 (0.1-6.5)   .51  
   Nonmyeloablative, with ATG   15.4 (2.0-116.1)   <.01  
CMV serostatus   
   Positive*  1.0   
   Negative   3.0 (0.9-9.7)   .07  
HLA, engrafted in doubles   
   6 of 6   1.0   
   5 of 6   0.2 (0.1-1.5)   .12  
   3-4 of 6   0.9 (0.2-4.7)   .94  
No. of donors   
   1   1.0   
   2
 
0.4 (0.1-2.4)
 
.29
 

Factors included in the model and tested for proportional hazards were conditioning regimen, CMV serostatus, age, weight, graft-versus-host disease prophylaxis, cell dose, diagnosis, number of UCB donor units, HLA match, prior autologous transplant, and sex

CI indicates confidence interval; ATG, antithymocyte globulin; and CMV, cytomegalovirus

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal