LS linear regression analysis for factors associated with percentage of cTFH in all HSCT patients
| Clinical factors . | Contrast . | Univariable . | Multivariable . | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LS mean difference . | STDERR . | P . | LS mean difference . | STDERR . | P . | ||
| Age | ≥50 vs <50 y old | −1.85 | 1.09 | .09 | −1.33 | 1.08 | .22 |
| Conditioning intensity | RIC vs MAC | −2.54 | 1.12 | .026 | −1.61 | 1.27 | .21 |
| GVHD prophylaxis | (Tac/Sir or Tac/Sir/MTX) vs Tac/MTX | −2.52 | 1.00 | .015 | −2.14 | 0.97 | .03 |
| cGVHD status at sample collection | Active vs (none or resolved) | −1.98 | 1.02 | .055 | −1.99 | 0.98 | .046 |
| “Epithelial” cGVHD | Gut/scleroderma/skin vs others | −3.35 | 0.97 | .001 | −3.19 | 0.94 | .001 |
| Clinical factors . | Contrast . | Univariable . | Multivariable . | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LS mean difference . | STDERR . | P . | LS mean difference . | STDERR . | P . | ||
| Age | ≥50 vs <50 y old | −1.85 | 1.09 | .09 | −1.33 | 1.08 | .22 |
| Conditioning intensity | RIC vs MAC | −2.54 | 1.12 | .026 | −1.61 | 1.27 | .21 |
| GVHD prophylaxis | (Tac/Sir or Tac/Sir/MTX) vs Tac/MTX | −2.52 | 1.00 | .015 | −2.14 | 0.97 | .03 |
| cGVHD status at sample collection | Active vs (none or resolved) | −1.98 | 1.02 | .055 | −1.99 | 0.98 | .046 |
| “Epithelial” cGVHD | Gut/scleroderma/skin vs others | −3.35 | 0.97 | .001 | −3.19 | 0.94 | .001 |
Other variables that were examined in univariable regression analysis were patient sex, donor type, graft source, and aGVHD grade II-IV. P values for these variables were >.1. In multivariable analysis, variables with P < .1 from the univariable analysis were included to avoid overfitting the model. P values shown in bold represent significant values.
LS, least squares; LS mean difference, least squares (marginal) mean difference between 2 groups; STDERR, standard error of the LS mean difference.