Health outcomes after myocardial infarction: A population study of 56 million people in England.

BACKGROUND: The occurrence of a range of health outcomes following myocardial infarction (MI) is unknown. Therefore, this study aimed to determine the long-term risk of major health outcomes following MI and generate sociodemographic stratified risk charts in order to inform care recommendations in the post-MI period and underpin shared decision making. METHODS AND FINDINGS: This nationwide cohort study includes all individuals aged ≥18 years admitted to one of 229 National Health Service (NHS) Trusts in England between 1 January 2008 and 31 January 2017 (final follow-up 27 March 2017). We analysed 11 non-fatal health outcomes (subsequent MI and first hospitalisation for heart failure, atrial fibrillation, cerebrovascular disease, peripheral arterial disease, severe bleeding, renal failure, diabetes mellitus, dementia, depression, and cancer) and all-cause mortality. Of the 55,619,430 population of England, 34,116,257 individuals contributing to 145,912,852 hospitalisations were included (mean age 41.7 years (standard deviation [SD 26.1]); n = 14,747,198 (44.2%) male). There were 433,361 individuals with MI (mean age 67.4 years [SD 14.4)]; n = 283,742 (65.5%) male). Following MI, all-cause mortality was the most frequent event (adjusted cumulative incidence at 9 years 37.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] [37.6,37.9]), followed by heart failure (29.6%; 95% CI [29.4,29.7]), renal failure (27.2%; 95% CI [27.0,27.4]), atrial fibrillation (22.3%; 95% CI [22.2,22.5]), severe bleeding (19.0%; 95% CI [18.8,19.1]), diabetes (17.0%; 95% CI [16.9,17.1]), cancer (13.5%; 95% CI [13.3,13.6]), cerebrovascular disease (12.5%; 95% CI [12.4,12.7]), depression (8.9%; 95% CI [8.7,9.0]), dementia (7.8%; 95% CI [7.7,7.9]), subsequent MI (7.1%; 95% CI [7.0,7.2]), and peripheral arterial disease (6.5%; 95% CI [6.4,6.6]). Compared with a risk-set matched population of 2,001,310 individuals, first hospitalisation of all non-fatal health outcomes were increased after MI, except for dementia (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.01; 95% CI [0.99,1.02];p = 0.468) and cancer (aHR 0.56; 95% CI [0.56,0.57];p < 0.001). The study includes data from secondary care only-as such diagnoses made outside of secondary care may have been missed leading to the potential underestimation of the total burden of disease following MI. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, up to a third of patients with MI developed heart failure or renal failure, 7% had another MI, and 38% died within 9 years (compared with 35% deaths among matched individuals). The incidence of all health outcomes, except dementia and cancer, was higher than expected during the normal life course without MI following adjustment for age, sex, year, and socioeconomic deprivation. Efforts targeted to prevent or limit the accrual of chronic, multisystem disease states following MI are needed and should be guided by the demographic-specific risk charts derived in this study.

Perils of Randomized Controlled Trial Survival Extrapolation Assuming Treatment Effect Waning: Why the Distinction Between Marginal and Conditional Estimates Matters.

OBJECTIVES: A long-term, constant, protective treatment effect is a strong assumption when extrapolating survival beyond clinical trial follow-up; hence, sensitivity to treatment effect waning is commonly assessed for economic evaluations. Forcing a hazard ratio (HR) to 1 does not necessarily estimate loss of individual-level treatment effect accurately because of HR selection bias. A simulation study was designed to explore the behavior of marginal HRs under a waning conditional (individual-level) treatment effect and demonstrate bias in forcing a marginal HR to 1 when the estimand is "survival difference with individual-level waning". METHODS: Data were simulated under 4 parameter combinations (varying prognostic strength of heterogeneity and treatment effect). Time-varying marginal HRs were estimated in scenarios where the true conditional HR attenuated to 1. Restricted mean survival time differences, estimated having constrained the marginal HR to 1, were compared with true values to assess bias induced by marginal constraints. RESULTS: Under loss of conditional treatment effect, the marginal HR took a value >1 because of covariate imbalances. Constraining this value to 1 lead to restricted mean survival time difference bias of up to 0.8 years (57% increase). Inflation of effect size estimates also increased with the magnitude of initial protective treatment effect. CONCLUSIONS: Important differences exist between survival extrapolations assuming marginal versus conditional treatment effect waning. When a marginal HR is constrained to 1 to assess efficacy under individual-level treatment effect waning, the survival benefits associated with the new treatment will be overestimated, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios will be underestimated.

Have the recent advancements in cancer therapy and survival benefitted patients of all age groups across the Nordic countries? NORDCAN survival analyses 2002-2021.

BACKGROUND: Since the early 2000s, overall and site-specific cancer survival have improved substantially in the Nordic countries. We evaluated whether the improvements have been similar across countries, major cancer types, and age groups. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Using population-based data from the five Nordic cancer registries recorded in the NORDCAN database, we included a cohort of 1,525,854 men and 1,378,470 women diagnosed with cancer (except non-melanoma skin cancer) during 2002-2021, and followed for death until 2021. We estimated 5-year relative survival (RS) in 5-year calendar periods, and percentage points (pp) differences in 5-year RS from 2002-2006 until 2017-2021. Separate analyses were performed for eight cancer sites (i.e. colorectum, pancreas, lung, breast, cervix uteri, kidney, prostate, and melanoma of skin). RESULTS: Five-year RS improved across nearly all cancer sites in all countries (except Iceland), with absolute differences across age groups ranging from 1 to 21 pp (all cancer sites), 2 to 20 pp (colorectum), -1 to 36 pp (pancreas), 2 to 28 pp (lung), 0 to 9 pp (breast), -11 to 26 pp (cervix uteri), 2 to 44 pp (kidney), -2 to 23 pp (prostate) and -3 to 30 pp (skin melanoma). The oldest patients (80-89 years) exhibited lower survival across all countries and sites, although with varying improvements over time. INTERPRETATION: Nordic cancer patients have generally experienced substantial improvements in cancer survival during the last two decades, including major cancer sites and age groups. Although survival has improved over time, older patients remain at a lower cancer survival compared to younger patients.

Trends in lung cancer survival in the Nordic countries 1990-2016: The NORDCAN survival studies.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate if the previously reported improvements in lung cancer survival were consistent across age at diagnosis and by lung cancer subtypes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data on lung cancers diagnosed between 1990 and 2016 in Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden were obtained from the NORDCAN database. Flexible parametric models were used to estimate age-standardized and age-specific relative survival by sex, as well as reference-adjusted crude probabilities of death and life-years lost. Age-standardised survival was also estimated by the three major subtypes; adenocarcincoma, squamous cell and small-cell carcinoma. RESULTS: Both 1- and 5-year relative survival improved continuously in all countries. The pattern of improvement was similar across age groups and by subtype. The largest improvements in survival were seen in Denmark, while improvements were comparatively smaller in Finland. In the most recent period, age-standardised estimates of 5-year relative survival ranged from 13% to 26% and the 5-year crude probability of death due to lung cancer ranged from 73% to 85%. Across all Nordic countries, survival decreased with age, and was lower in men and for small-cell carcinoma. CONCLUSION: Lung cancer survival has improved substantially since 1990, in both women and men and across age. The improvements were seen in all major subtypes. However, lung cancer survival remains poor, with three out of four patients dying from their lung cancer within five years of diagnosis.

Survival trends for patients diagnosed with cutaneous malignant melanoma in the Nordic countries 1990-2016: The NORDCAN survival studies.

BACKGROUND: The survival in patients diagnosed with cutaneous malignant melanoma (CMM) has improved in the Nordic countries in the last decades. It is of interest to know if these improvements are observed in all ages and for both women and men. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with CMM in the Nordic countries in 1990-2016 were identified in the NORDCAN database. Flexible parametric relative survival models were fitted, except for Iceland where a non-parametric Pohar-Perme approach was used. A range of survival metrics were estimated by sex, both age-standardised and age-specific. RESULTS: The 5-year relative survival improved in all countries, in both women and men and across age. While the improvement was more pronounced in men, women still had a higher survival at the end of the study period. The survival was generally high, with age-standardised estimates of 5-year relative survival towards the end of the study period ranging from 85% in Icelandic men to 95% in Danish women. The age-standardised and reference-adjusted 5-year crude probability of death due to CMM ranged from 5% in Danish and Swedish women to 13% in Icelandic men. CONCLUSION: Although survival following CMM was relatively high in the Nordic countries in 1990, continued improvements in survival were observed throughout the study period in both women and men and across age.