Table 2 Factors associated with NRM.

From: Influence of pre-transplant estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) on clinical outcomes after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation

 

Univariate

Multivariate

Characteristics

HR (95% CI)

P value

Adjusted HR (95% CI)

P value

eGFR

 ≥120

1

 

1

 

 90–119

1.58 (0.85, 2.95)

0.15

1.45 (0.72, 2.91)

0.30

 70-89

1.71 (0.89, 3.3)

0.11

1.59 (0.77, 3.26)

0.21

 <70

3.41 (1.79, 6.51)

0.0002

2.72 (1.3, 5.67)

0.008

 <70 vs 70–89

1.99 (1.33, 2.98)

0.0008

1.71 (1.14, 2.59)

0.01

 <70 vs 90–119

2.16 (1.52, 3.05)

<0.0001

1.88 (1.30, 2.71)

0.0008

 70–89 vs 90–119

1.08 (0.75, 1.55)

0.68

1.10 (0.76, 1.59)

0.62

Age category

 18–59

1

 

1

 

 60–69

1.23 (0.91, 1.68)

0.18

1.00 (0.67, 1.52)

0.98

 70–79

1.88 (1.21, 2.9)

0.005

1.46 (0.85, 2.53)

0.17

Sex, Male

1.01 (0.76, 1.35)

0.92

  

Race

 Black

1

   

 Caucasian

1.33 (0.62, 2.85)

0.46

  

 Other

1.56 (0.57, 4.24)

0.38

  

KPS ≥ 90 vs <90

0.54 (0.4, 0.73)

<0.0001

1.64 (1.21, 2.23)

0.001

Intensity of conditioning, RIC vs MAC

1.48 (1.10, 2.00)

0.01

0.87 (0.53, 1.42)

0.57

Graft type, PSC vs BM

2.20 (1.57, 3.09)

<0.0001

2.28 (1.47, 3.52)

0.0002

Donor source

 Haplo

1

 

1

 

 RD

1.55 (0.94, 2.55)

0.08

2.18 (1.24, 3.83)

0.007

 URD

1.83 (1.16, 2.87)

0.009

2.43 (1.42, 4.15)

0.001

Bu/Flu use

1.46 (1.1, 1.94)

0.009

0.65 (0.41, 1.04)

0.07

PTCy use

0.77 (0.55, 1.07)

0.11

  

HCT-CI (without renal)

 Low

1

 

1

 

 Intermediate

1.25 (0.77, 2.02)

0.363

1.18 (0.72, 1.92)

0.51

 High

1.65 (1.06, 2.56)

0.026

1.43 (0.91, 2.24)

0.12

CMV donor–receipt

 +/+

1

   

 +/−

0.91 (0.53, 1.57)

0.74

  

 −/+

0.97 (0.68, 1.37)

0.85

  

 −/−

0.95 (0.63, 1.42)

0.79

  

DRI

 High

1

   

 Intermediate

1.05 (0.74, 1.5)

0.79

  

 Low

1.11 (0.71, 1.73)

0.66

  

 NA

1.03 (0.43, 2.5)

0.94

  
  1. In multivariate analysis, risk of NRM in eGFR<70 remained significantly higher compared to other categories after adjusting for age, KPS, intensity of conditioning, graft type, donor source, Busulfan/Fludarabine use and HCT-CI without renal function. Differences among other categories were not significant.