VuBru Wednesday, 08/14/19 02:30:18 PM Re: sts66 post# 208806 Post # of 209890 STS - Quote:At a prespecified alpha level of 0.15, there was evidence of a significant differential effect between the secondary and primary prevention subgroups on the primary composite endpoint (p-value for interaction=0.14) but not the secondary composite endpoint. That means that the association between V use and reduced risk was different in the primary vs. secondary prevention groups. Maybe AVI knows, but I am not sure why they chose a p<.15 level of significance for this interaction test. That is abnormally high (i.e., easy to meet significance). I think it is worth noting that even with this relaxed test of significance, primary vs. secondary did NOT differ in terms of Hard MACE outcomes (secondary composite).