Great care should be taken when assessing the consistency of treatment effect over time based on a survival curve plot, and even more so when a treatment affects a repeating event end-point, such as exacerbations, rather than an event that can occur only once, like death. In their recent editorial in the European Respiratory Journal, SUISSA and ARIEL [1] make the assertation that survival functions plotted from Kaplan–Meier estimates from figure 1b in the IMPACT study [2] “clearly show that the difference in the rate of exacerbation between LAMA/LABA/ICS and LAMA/LABA over follow-up is due to the first month’s surge, with practically no differences in the subsequent rates between the two groups”. However, this statement is based on a misunderstanding of the survival analyses presented.
展开▼
机译：在基于生存曲线图评估治疗效果的一致性时，应甚至更多，因此当治疗影响重复事件终点时，例如加剧，而不是只能发生一次的事件， 像死亡一样。 在他们最近的欧洲呼吸学期刊中的社论中，Suissa和Ariel [1]发出断言，即在影响研究[2]中，从图1B中的Kaplan-Meier估计绘制的生存功能[2]“清楚地表明差异在加剧之间的差异 Lama / Laba / ICS和Lama / Laba通过后续行动是由于第一个月的浪涌，几乎没有两组之间的随后税率差异“。 但是，本声明基于对所提出的生存分析的误解。
展开▼
