4.7 Article

Comparative analysis of risk factors for acute graft-versus-host disease and for chronic graft-versus-host disease according to National Institutes of Health consensus criteria

Journal

BLOOD
Volume 117, Issue 11, Pages 3214-3219

Publisher

AMER SOC HEMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.1182/blood-2010-08-302109

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services [CA18029, HL36444, CA15704, CA 118953]
  2. Banyu Life Science Foundation International
  3. Office of Naval Research [N00014-06-1-0704]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Risk factors for grades 2-4 acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) and for chronic GVHD as defined by National Institutes of Health consensus criteria were evaluated and compared in 2941 recipients of first allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation at our center. In multivariate analyses, the profiles of risk factors for acute and chronic GVHD were similar, with some notable differences. Recipient human leukocyte antigen (HLA) mismatching and the use of unrelated donors had a greater effect on the risk of acute GVHD than on chronic GVHD, whereas the use of female donors for male recipients had a greater effect on the risk of chronic GVHD than on acute GVHD. Total body irradiation was strongly associated with acute GVHD, but had no statistically significant association with chronic GVHD, whereas grafting with mobilized blood cells was strongly associated with chronic GVHD but not with acute GVHD. Older patient age was associated with chronic GVHD, but had no effect on acute GVHD. For all risk factors associated with chronic GVHD, point estimates and confidence intervals were not significantly changed after adjustment for prior acute GVHD. These results suggest that the mechanisms involved in acute and chronic GVHD are not entirely congruent and that chronic GVHD is not simply the end stage of acute GVHD. (Blood. 2011; 117(11): 3214-3219)

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available