You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
what is the median age WITHOUT transplant
- Thread starter anonymous
- Start date
Median shmeidan... I know that if my boyfriend doesn't get his transplant, his life expectancy will be 30 at the most. Since he will get it, he will live longer. Transplants add years (as long as they are successful). and now I have hope that he will be one of the people at 10 years post tx and still doing great.
Median shmeidan... I know that if my boyfriend doesn't get his transplant, his life expectancy will be 30 at the most. Since he will get it, he will live longer. Transplants add years (as long as they are successful). and now I have hope that he will be one of the people at 10 years post tx and still doing great.
Median shmeidan... I know that if my boyfriend doesn't get his transplant, his life expectancy will be 30 at the most. Since he will get it, he will live longer. Transplants add years (as long as they are successful). and now I have hope that he will be one of the people at 10 years post tx and still doing great.
I'm groggy, so please correct the math as needed. And Im too
tired to battle my old browser for the articles here, but they're
easily Googled.
Dyza, does the source you cite say tx increases the median age
of cystics by 4.5 or that 4.5 is the median survival time of tx
recipients? The Rainbow Babies/Birmingham study a few years
back shows it's dubious whether tx increases the longevity of tx
recipents at all. In other words, their non-tx group in the same
FEV1 range lived about as long or longer as those who were tx'd.
Yes, there were factors other than FEV1, and this was under the
old allocation system, but the new system is only a year and a half
old and most of those old-system patients are still with us, affecting
the median. Anyway, the paper reminds us that tx is no great
bargain either. The Times article this week suggested the same
thing.
And even if every tx patient lived exactly 4.5 years post-surgery,
they would still only represent a fourth or a fifth of the whole CF
population and thus would have only a slight effect on the overall
median.
In addition, the median age of tx is 28. The median survival of
those patients is five years. Therefore, they should bring the
overall CF median DOWN, not up. Is that right?
As someone suggested above, the medians are misleading
numbers because there is not one type of CF or CF treatment.
Minnesota, for instance, reports that the discrepancy between
non-diabetic male cystics and diabetic females is something like 17
years. So you can't have the same CF twice.
Q
tired to battle my old browser for the articles here, but they're
easily Googled.
Dyza, does the source you cite say tx increases the median age
of cystics by 4.5 or that 4.5 is the median survival time of tx
recipients? The Rainbow Babies/Birmingham study a few years
back shows it's dubious whether tx increases the longevity of tx
recipents at all. In other words, their non-tx group in the same
FEV1 range lived about as long or longer as those who were tx'd.
Yes, there were factors other than FEV1, and this was under the
old allocation system, but the new system is only a year and a half
old and most of those old-system patients are still with us, affecting
the median. Anyway, the paper reminds us that tx is no great
bargain either. The Times article this week suggested the same
thing.
And even if every tx patient lived exactly 4.5 years post-surgery,
they would still only represent a fourth or a fifth of the whole CF
population and thus would have only a slight effect on the overall
median.
In addition, the median age of tx is 28. The median survival of
those patients is five years. Therefore, they should bring the
overall CF median DOWN, not up. Is that right?
As someone suggested above, the medians are misleading
numbers because there is not one type of CF or CF treatment.
Minnesota, for instance, reports that the discrepancy between
non-diabetic male cystics and diabetic females is something like 17
years. So you can't have the same CF twice.
Q
I'm groggy, so please correct the math as needed. And Im too
tired to battle my old browser for the articles here, but they're
easily Googled.
Dyza, does the source you cite say tx increases the median age
of cystics by 4.5 or that 4.5 is the median survival time of tx
recipients? The Rainbow Babies/Birmingham study a few years
back shows it's dubious whether tx increases the longevity of tx
recipents at all. In other words, their non-tx group in the same
FEV1 range lived about as long or longer as those who were tx'd.
Yes, there were factors other than FEV1, and this was under the
old allocation system, but the new system is only a year and a half
old and most of those old-system patients are still with us, affecting
the median. Anyway, the paper reminds us that tx is no great
bargain either. The Times article this week suggested the same
thing.
And even if every tx patient lived exactly 4.5 years post-surgery,
they would still only represent a fourth or a fifth of the whole CF
population and thus would have only a slight effect on the overall
median.
In addition, the median age of tx is 28. The median survival of
those patients is five years. Therefore, they should bring the
overall CF median DOWN, not up. Is that right?
As someone suggested above, the medians are misleading
numbers because there is not one type of CF or CF treatment.
Minnesota, for instance, reports that the discrepancy between
non-diabetic male cystics and diabetic females is something like 17
years. So you can't have the same CF twice.
Q
tired to battle my old browser for the articles here, but they're
easily Googled.
Dyza, does the source you cite say tx increases the median age
of cystics by 4.5 or that 4.5 is the median survival time of tx
recipients? The Rainbow Babies/Birmingham study a few years
back shows it's dubious whether tx increases the longevity of tx
recipents at all. In other words, their non-tx group in the same
FEV1 range lived about as long or longer as those who were tx'd.
Yes, there were factors other than FEV1, and this was under the
old allocation system, but the new system is only a year and a half
old and most of those old-system patients are still with us, affecting
the median. Anyway, the paper reminds us that tx is no great
bargain either. The Times article this week suggested the same
thing.
And even if every tx patient lived exactly 4.5 years post-surgery,
they would still only represent a fourth or a fifth of the whole CF
population and thus would have only a slight effect on the overall
median.
In addition, the median age of tx is 28. The median survival of
those patients is five years. Therefore, they should bring the
overall CF median DOWN, not up. Is that right?
As someone suggested above, the medians are misleading
numbers because there is not one type of CF or CF treatment.
Minnesota, for instance, reports that the discrepancy between
non-diabetic male cystics and diabetic females is something like 17
years. So you can't have the same CF twice.
Q
I'm groggy, so please correct the math as needed. And Im too
tired to battle my old browser for the articles here, but they're
easily Googled.
Dyza, does the source you cite say tx increases the median age
of cystics by 4.5 or that 4.5 is the median survival time of tx
recipients? The Rainbow Babies/Birmingham study a few years
back shows it's dubious whether tx increases the longevity of tx
recipents at all. In other words, their non-tx group in the same
FEV1 range lived about as long or longer as those who were tx'd.
Yes, there were factors other than FEV1, and this was under the
old allocation system, but the new system is only a year and a half
old and most of those old-system patients are still with us, affecting
the median. Anyway, the paper reminds us that tx is no great
bargain either. The Times article this week suggested the same
thing.
And even if every tx patient lived exactly 4.5 years post-surgery,
they would still only represent a fourth or a fifth of the whole CF
population and thus would have only a slight effect on the overall
median.
In addition, the median age of tx is 28. The median survival of
those patients is five years. Therefore, they should bring the
overall CF median DOWN, not up. Is that right?
As someone suggested above, the medians are misleading
numbers because there is not one type of CF or CF treatment.
Minnesota, for instance, reports that the discrepancy between
non-diabetic male cystics and diabetic females is something like 17
years. So you can't have the same CF twice.
Q
tired to battle my old browser for the articles here, but they're
easily Googled.
Dyza, does the source you cite say tx increases the median age
of cystics by 4.5 or that 4.5 is the median survival time of tx
recipients? The Rainbow Babies/Birmingham study a few years
back shows it's dubious whether tx increases the longevity of tx
recipents at all. In other words, their non-tx group in the same
FEV1 range lived about as long or longer as those who were tx'd.
Yes, there were factors other than FEV1, and this was under the
old allocation system, but the new system is only a year and a half
old and most of those old-system patients are still with us, affecting
the median. Anyway, the paper reminds us that tx is no great
bargain either. The Times article this week suggested the same
thing.
And even if every tx patient lived exactly 4.5 years post-surgery,
they would still only represent a fourth or a fifth of the whole CF
population and thus would have only a slight effect on the overall
median.
In addition, the median age of tx is 28. The median survival of
those patients is five years. Therefore, they should bring the
overall CF median DOWN, not up. Is that right?
As someone suggested above, the medians are misleading
numbers because there is not one type of CF or CF treatment.
Minnesota, for instance, reports that the discrepancy between
non-diabetic male cystics and diabetic females is something like 17
years. So you can't have the same CF twice.
Q