American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery position statement on long-term survival benefit after metabolic and bariatric surgery

2016 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 453-459 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julie Kim ◽  
Dan Eisenberg ◽  
Dan Azagury ◽  
Ann Rogers ◽  
Guilherme M. Campos
Keyword(s):  
Bariatric Surgery ◽  
Survival Benefit ◽  
Position Statement ◽  
Term Survival ◽  
Long Term Survival ◽  
American Society ◽  
Metabolic And Bariatric Surgery

scholarly journals Long-term survival benefit of ramipril in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by heart failure

Heart ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 107 (5) ◽  
pp. 389-395
Author(s):  
Jianhua Wu ◽  
Alistair S Hall ◽  
Chris P Gale
Keyword(s):  
Myocardial Infarction ◽  
Heart Failure ◽  
Acute Myocardial Infarction ◽  
Life Expectancy ◽  
Survival Benefit ◽  
Ace Inhibition ◽  
Survival Times ◽  
Term Survival ◽  
Long Term Survival

AimsACE inhibition reduces mortality and morbidity in patients with heart failure after acute myocardial infarction (AMI). However, there are limited randomised data about the long-term survival benefits of ACE inhibition in this population.MethodsIn 1993, the Acute Infarction Ramipril Efficacy (AIRE) study randomly allocated patients with AMI and clinical heart failure to ramipril or placebo. The duration of masked trial therapy in the UK cohort (603 patients, mean age=64.7 years, 455 male patients) was 12.4 and 13.4 months for ramipril (n=302) and placebo (n=301), respectively. We estimated life expectancy and extensions of life (difference in median survival times) according to duration of follow-up (range 0–29.6 years).ResultsBy 9 April 2019, death from all causes occurred in 266 (88.4%) patients in placebo arm and 275 (91.1%) patients in ramipril arm. The extension of life between ramipril and placebo groups was 14.5 months (95% CI 13.2 to 15.8). Ramipril increased life expectancy more for patients with than without diabetes (life expectancy difference 32.1 vs 5.0 months), previous AMI (20.1 vs 4.9 months), previous heart failure (19.5 vs 4.9 months), hypertension (16.6 vs 8.3 months), angina (16.2 vs 5.0 months) and age >65 years (11.3 vs 5.7 months). Given potential treatment switching, the true absolute treatment effect could be underestimated by 28%.ConclusionFor patients with clinically defined heart failure following AMI, ramipril results in a sustained survival benefit, and is associated with an extension of life of up to 14.5 months for, on average, 13 months treatment duration.

183 MELD CLASS AND LONG-TERM SURVIVAL BENEFIT OF LIVER TRANSPLANTATION: AN INTENTION-TO-TREAT ANALYSIS

2008 ◽  
Vol 48 ◽  
pp. S77-S78
Author(s):  
A.W. Avolio ◽  
M. Siciliano ◽  
S. Agnes ◽  
A. Gasbarrini ◽  
G. Caracciolo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Liver Transplantation ◽  
Survival Benefit ◽  
Term Survival ◽  
Long Term Survival ◽  
Intention To Treat ◽  
Treat Analysis

scholarly journals Assessing Long-Term Survival Benefits of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors Using the Net Survival Benefit

2019 ◽  
Vol 111 (11) ◽  
pp. 1186-1191 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julien Péron ◽  
Alexandre Lambert ◽  
Stephane Munier ◽  
Brice Ozenne ◽  
Joris Giai ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Effect ◽  
Survival Benefit ◽  
Rank Test ◽  
Cure Rate ◽  
Term Survival ◽  
Long Term Survival ◽  
Delayed Treatment ◽  
Net Survival ◽  
Log Rank Test

Abstract Background The treatment effect in survival analysis is commonly quantified as the hazard ratio, and tested statistically using the standard log-rank test. Modern anticancer immunotherapies are successful in a proportion of patients who remain alive even after a long-term follow-up. This new phenomenon induces a nonproportionality of the underlying hazards of death. Methods The properties of the net survival benefit were illustrated using the dataset from a trial evaluating ipilimumab in metastatic melanoma. The net survival benefit was then investigated through simulated datasets under typical scenarios of proportional hazards, delayed treatment effect, and cure rate. The net survival benefit test was computed according to the value of the minimal survival difference considered clinically relevant. As comparators, the standard and the weighted log-rank tests were also performed. Results In the illustrative dataset, the net survival benefit favored ipilimumab [Δ(0) = 15.8%, 95% confidence interval = 4.6% to 27.3%, P = .006]. This favorable effect was maintained when the analysis was focused on long-term survival differences (eg, >12 months, Δ(12) = 12.5% (95% confidence interval = 4.4% to 20.6%, P = .002). Under the scenarios of a delayed treatment effect and cure rate, the power of the net survival benefit test compared favorably to the standard log-rank test power and was comparable to the power of the weighted log-rank test for large values of the threshold of clinical relevance. Conclusion The net long-term survival benefit is a measure of treatment effect that is meaningful whether or not hazards are proportional. The associated statistical test is more powerful than the standard log-rank test when a delayed treatment effect is anticipated.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document