Decreased Infections in Recipients of Unrelated Donor (URD Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation (HCT) from Donors with An Activating KIR B Genotype (B/x)
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract In URD allogeneic HCT, donor, not recipient, KIR B/x genotype improves leukemia free survival. Decreased rates of CMV reactivation occur in renal transplant recipients with KIR B/x genotypes. We hypothesized that recipients of cells from a KIR B/x genotypic URD will have decreased infectious complications due to enhanced NK cell function. The National Marrow Donor Program (NMDP) prospectively collected data oninfectious complications at 2 week intervals beginning with conditioning until day 100 and then monthly until day 180 after URD HCT for malignant and nonmalignant diseases at 27 centers (n = 211). A subset of these donors (n = 116) had samples available through the NMDP Research Repository for KIR genotyping (A/A: n = 44; B/x: n = 72). The two cohorts had similar characteristics including age, gender, Karnofsky score, disease and disease status, degree of HLA matching, conditioning intensity, graft type, and donor/recipient CMV match and sex match. Infections were characterized as clinical infectious syndromes if no organism was identified or bacterial, fungal, or viral based on the causative organism. Bacterial infections were significantly lower for recipients of a B/x genotypic donor compared to the A/A genotype [68% (57 – 78) vs 86% (75 – 95); p = 0.02]. The cumulative incidence of other infection types was similar between the groups. A Poisson regression model estimated the expected number of infections for a patient observed up until day 180 and determined characteristics associated with specific infections. Donor KIR genotype was considered in every model. Other factors analyzed included patient and donor age, donor/recipient CMV and sex match, disease (leukemia/MDS vs other), disease status, HLA match (well matched vs partially matched vs mismatched), GVHD prophylaxis (CSA/FK based vs other), and graft type. The mean estimated number of infections per patient was as follows: bacterial, 1.138; viral, 0.58; fungal, 0.764; clinical infectious syndromes, 0.506; and total infections, 6.306. Based on these models, a B/x donor was associated with a statistically lower mean ratio of total infections [B/x = 1.00 vs A/A = 1.23 (1.02 – 1.49), p = 0.03] and bacterial infections [B/x = 1.00 vs A/A = 1.50 (1.16 – 1.94), p = 0.002] compared to recipients of an A/A donor. The table shows the other factors associated with total infections and bacterial infections. The use of an A/A donor was associated with a lower mean ratio of fungal infections [B/x = 1.00 vs A/A= 0.40 (0.17 – 0.92), p = 0.03] but similar ratios of viral and clinical infectious syndromes. Multivariate analysis found a similar relative risk of aGVHD II – IV, cGVHD, and survival regardless of donor KIR genotype. The role of donor KIR genotype on post HCT infectious complications is intriguing and warrants further study in larger populations of patients with uniform antimicrobial prophylaxis to better assess clinical impact. Variable Total Infections Bacterial Infections Ratio of Mean number of infections (95% CI) p-value Ratio of Mean number of infections (95% CI) p-value KIR Genotype A/A 1.23 (1.02 – 1.49) 0.03 1.50 (1.16 – 1.94) 0.002 B/x 1.00 1.00 Patient Age, yrs <0.0001 0.004 <10 0.44 (0.34 – 0.88) 0.01 0.60 (0.32 – 1.15) 0.13 10 – 19 1.23 (0.9 – 1.69) 0.20 1.36 (0.85 – 2.16) 0.20 20 – 29 0.57 (0.42 – 0.77) 0.0003 0.50 (0.33 – 0.78) 0.002 30 – 39 1.05 (0.81 – 1.37) 0.71 0.91 (0.64 – 1.30) 0.61 40 – 49 0.69 (0.51 – 0.94) 0.02 0.84 (0.55 – 1.28) 0.42 >50 1.00 1.00 D/R sex match 0.0001 0.009 F/F 1.00 1.00 F/M 1.28 (0.95 – 1.72) 0.10 1.22 (0.81 – 1.83) 0.34 M/F 0.84 (0.60 – 1.17) 0.30 0.76 (0.48 – 1.20) 0.24 M/M 1.50 (1.14 – 1.97) 0.004 1.40 (0.97 – 2.04) 0.07 D/R CMV match <0.0001 0.03 N/N 0.79 (0.56 – 1.12) 0.18 0.90 (0.59 – 1.37) 0.62 N/P 1.65 (1.25 – 2.18) 0.0004 1.31 (0.90 – 1.90) 0.16 P/N higher 0.84 (0.61 – 1.16) 0.29 0.76 (0.49 – 1.16) 0.20 P/P 1.00 1.00 Disease status 0.0008 0.0003 Early 1.14 (0.87 – 1.48) 0.34 1.51 (1.04 – 2.18) 0.03 Intermediate 0.68 (0.51 – 0.91) 0.01 0.61 (0.40 – 0.92) 0.02 Advanced 1.23 (0.95 – 1.60) 0.13 1.36 (0.96 – 1.93) 0.09 Other 1.00 1.00 Donor Age, yrs 0.022 - 20 – 29 0.64 (0.46 – 0.88) 0.006 - 30 – 39 0.80 (0.58 – 1.09) 0.16 - 40 – 49 0.89 (0.63 – 1.24) 0.48 - >50 1.00 - HLA Match <0.0001 Well matched - 1.00 Partially matched - 1.54 (1.15 – 2.07) 0.004 Mismatched - 2.87 (2.02 – 4.05) <0.0001 GVHD Prophylaxis - CSA/FK based - 1.84 (1.30 – 2.60) 0.0005 Other - 1.00
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».