The curves represent people who experienced the outcome, and not people left
after experiencing the outcome, so those 2% are the people who experienced
the outcome, and 100-2=98% people remained after 5 years.
dr. Cristian Baicus
Clinica de Medicina Interna
Sos. Stefan cel Mare 19-21
[log in to unmask]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jean Levasseur" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 5:04 AM
Subject: Survival curve question
>I am trying to interpret the survival curves found in the JUPITER trial
>published in the NEJM last november and I am struggling with the
>interpretation of these curves.
> At the start of the trial there were 8901 patients in each group, the
> trial was stopped by the sponsor after 1,9 years for apparent large
> benefit for the treatment group, and there remained less than 200
> subjects at risk at the end of the 5 year follow-up. The hazard ratio is
> calculated at 5 years and shows a large benefit, but less than 2%
> remained at that time...
> I am no expert in survival curves, but isn't there something wrong with
> the interpretation ??
> Could someone help me with the interpretation of these curves?? and the
> decay of the number at risk and its effect on the interpretation of such
> a survival curve.
> The JUPITER trial slides can be found at :
> Many thanks !
> Jean Levasseur MD, MSc