Figure legand
Figure 1 .The comparison for the responder composition at the
first month, the third month and the sixth month. At the first month
evaluation, there were 21 major responders, 9 minor responder and 47
non-responders. At the third month evaluation, there were 42 major
responders, 10 minor responder and 25 non-responders. At the sixth month
evaluation, there were 51 major responders, 11 minor responder and 15
non-responders.
Figure 2. The baseline fetal hemoglobin (HbF) concentration, HbF
concentration at the third month of treatment, and HbF concentration at
the sixth month of treatment comparison between groups of major
response, minor response and no response.A . The baseline
HbF concentration were not significantly different between group major
response (11.1 (1.7, 77.18) g·L-1), minor response (9.5 (3.58, 15.4)
g·L-1) and group no response (6.3 (0.5, 38.4) g·L-1) (**p =
0.063) according to the evaluation at the first month. The differences
between any two groups were not significant. B .
According to the evaluation at the third month, the baseline HbF
concentration was significantly higher in group major response (10.4
(1.7, 77.18) g·L-1) than group minor response (5.32 (2.99, 7.64) g·L-1)
and group no response (5.22 (3.3, 7.1) g·L-1) (**p <
0.001, ▲ p = 0.033), while the differences between group minor
response and group no response were not significant (p = 1.000).
C . According to the evaluation at the third month, the
third month HbF concentration was significantly different between group
major response (68.4 (9.43, 121.16) g·L-1), group minor response (38.75
(26.78, 50.7) g·L-1) and group no response (25.7 (20.95, 42.7) g·L-1)
(**p < 0.001, ▲ p = 0.053), while the differences
between group minor response and group no response were not significant
(p = 0.734). D . According to the evaluation at
the sixth month, the baseline HbF concentration was significantly
different between group major response (8.87 (0.625, 77.18) g·L-1),
group minor response (5.40 (2.51, 8.34) g·L-1) and group no response
(5.18 (2.65, 7.71) g·L-1) (**p = 0.007, ▲ p = 0.09), while
the differences between group minor response and group no response were
not significant (p = 1.000). E . According to the
evaluation at the sixth month, the third month HbF concentration was
significantly higher in group major response (63.1 (54.1, 72.1) g·L-1)
than group minor response (32.2 (22.7, 41.7) g·L-1) and group no
response (29.8 (11.4, 48.2) g·L-1) (**p < 0.001, ▲p < 0.001), while the differences between group minor
response and group no response were not significant (p = 0.992).
F . According to the evaluation at the sixth month, the
sixth month HbF concentration was significantly higher in group major
response (84.2 (77.0, 91.4) g·L-1) than group minor response (49.3
(26.7, 71.9) g·L-1) and group no response (39.7 (21.7, 57.7) g·L-1)
(**p < 0.001, ▲ p = 0.001), while the differences
between group minor response and group no response were not significant
(p = 1.000).
Figure 3 .The receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve
analysis for hemoglobin F (HbF) concentration at different stages in
predicting probability of major responders at the sixth
month.A . The ROC analysis for HbF concentration at
baseline in predicting probability of major responders at the sixth
month. The area under the ROC curve (AUC) was 0.723 (p = 0.002).
B . The ROC analysis for HbF concentration at the third
month in predicting probability of major responders at the sixth month.
The AUC was 0.806 (p < 0.001). C . The
ROC analysis for HbF concentration at the sixth month in predicting
probability of major responders at the sixth month. The AUC was 0.858
(p < 0.001).