AI
Monday, August 22, 2016 5:04:13 PM
JL re your pts
The following from the JELIS 2ndry analysis are those IMHO most likely to be closest to R-IT ( at least post May 2013
-----------------------------
Among the 895 patients with prior coronary intervention
(PTCA or CABG), the incidence of MCE in the EPA group
(14.7%) was significantly lower than that in the control group
(22.0%, adjusted HR 0.65, P=0.007, NNT=13, Figure 2b).
Among the 1,050 patients with prior MI, the incidence of
MCE in the EPA group (15.0%) was significantly lower
than that in the control group (20.1%, adjusted HR 0.73, P=
0.033, NNT=19, Figure 2c). A
--------------------------
These JELIS cohorts were not low risk . The event rates in both arms were high , and one of the reasons for that ,I maintain , is that they weren't on optimal doses of high intensity Statins.
In R-IT Dr Ketchum ( in the 4th Qt 2015 CC ? ) stated that R-IT allowed for a 5.2% placebo rate so you can't assume its , to quote you , "5.7% or there abouts "
So I don't agree with your statement that the " the annual CVD risk in this RI ( control ) group two and one half times higher then the CVD risk in JELIS "
In R-IT they will more actively and accurately control for reported Angina ...which as you know , has always been one of the main criticisms of the figures from JELIS .
Where do you get the CVD event rate in JELIS of 2.3% ......only by including the 2903 patients reporting stable Angina with the event rates in both arms of this sub group , dropping down to roughly 2% per year and skewing the data for the entire 2ndry group.
There are a lot of moving parts here . One constant tho is EPA does lower event rates ..we agree on that at least ...
Kiwi
The following from the JELIS 2ndry analysis are those IMHO most likely to be closest to R-IT ( at least post May 2013
-----------------------------
Among the 895 patients with prior coronary intervention
(PTCA or CABG), the incidence of MCE in the EPA group
(14.7%) was significantly lower than that in the control group
(22.0%, adjusted HR 0.65, P=0.007, NNT=13, Figure 2b).
Among the 1,050 patients with prior MI, the incidence of
MCE in the EPA group (15.0%) was significantly lower
than that in the control group (20.1%, adjusted HR 0.73, P=
0.033, NNT=19, Figure 2c). A
--------------------------
These JELIS cohorts were not low risk . The event rates in both arms were high , and one of the reasons for that ,I maintain , is that they weren't on optimal doses of high intensity Statins.
In R-IT Dr Ketchum ( in the 4th Qt 2015 CC ? ) stated that R-IT allowed for a 5.2% placebo rate so you can't assume its , to quote you , "5.7% or there abouts "
So I don't agree with your statement that the " the annual CVD risk in this RI ( control ) group two and one half times higher then the CVD risk in JELIS "
In R-IT they will more actively and accurately control for reported Angina ...which as you know , has always been one of the main criticisms of the figures from JELIS .
Where do you get the CVD event rate in JELIS of 2.3% ......only by including the 2903 patients reporting stable Angina with the event rates in both arms of this sub group , dropping down to roughly 2% per year and skewing the data for the entire 2ndry group.
There are a lot of moving parts here . One constant tho is EPA does lower event rates ..we agree on that at least ...
Kiwi
