Impact of CMV reactivation on outcomes in the multivariate analyses
| . | HR (95% CI) . | P value . | P value for interaction∗ . |
|---|---|---|---|
| Relapse | |||
| AML | .350 | ||
| CMV reactivation(−) | 1 | Ref | |
| CMV reactivation(+) | 0.81 (0.69-0.95) | .009 | |
| ALL | |||
| CMV reactivation(−) | 1 | Ref | |
| CMV reactivation(+) | 0.81 (0.66-0.99) | .045 | |
| NRM | |||
| AML | .073 | ||
| CMV reactivation(−) | 1 | Ref | |
| CMV reactivation(+) | 1.28 (1.09-1.51) | .002 | |
| ALL | |||
| CMV reactivation(−) | 1 | Ref | |
| CMV reactivation(+) | 1.47 (1.19-1.83) | <.001 | |
| OS | |||
| AML | .146 | ||
| CMV reactivation(−) | 1 | Ref | |
| CMV reactivation(+) | 1.05 (0.93-1.17) | .452 | |
| ALL | |||
| CMV reactivation(−) | 1 | Ref | |
| CMV reactivation(+) | 1.18 (1.00-1.38) | .045 |
| . | HR (95% CI) . | P value . | P value for interaction∗ . |
|---|---|---|---|
| Relapse | |||
| AML | .350 | ||
| CMV reactivation(−) | 1 | Ref | |
| CMV reactivation(+) | 0.81 (0.69-0.95) | .009 | |
| ALL | |||
| CMV reactivation(−) | 1 | Ref | |
| CMV reactivation(+) | 0.81 (0.66-0.99) | .045 | |
| NRM | |||
| AML | .073 | ||
| CMV reactivation(−) | 1 | Ref | |
| CMV reactivation(+) | 1.28 (1.09-1.51) | .002 | |
| ALL | |||
| CMV reactivation(−) | 1 | Ref | |
| CMV reactivation(+) | 1.47 (1.19-1.83) | <.001 | |
| OS | |||
| AML | .146 | ||
| CMV reactivation(−) | 1 | Ref | |
| CMV reactivation(+) | 1.05 (0.93-1.17) | .452 | |
| ALL | |||
| CMV reactivation(−) | 1 | Ref | |
| CMV reactivation(+) | 1.18 (1.00-1.38) | .045 |
All models were adjusted for recipient’s age, sex mismatch, CMV serological status, DRI, HCT-CI, donor source, GVHD prophylaxis, conditioning intensity, in vivo T-cell depletion, year of HCT, and grades 2-4 acute GVHD by day 65. In ALL, a positivity of Ph-chrosomosome was also included in the model.
Bold indicates statistical significance.
P value for the interaction between primary disease (AML vs ALL) and CMV reactivation.