Amarin Corp Plc (AMRN)

[VuBru]

EVAPORATE - One thing I find odd is that 21% slowing of the progression of low attenuation plaque (LAP) was p = .469 whereas only 19% slowing of total non-calcified plaque was p = .01. The sample size was the same so there is only one source for this difference (assuming someone did not make a math error): A bigger effect for LAP but with a much smaller p value indicates there must have been wide variability on this particular measure. Maybe there is a subgroup who responds with good effects of V on this but others who do not respond at all? From taking a quick look at recent literature it seems that LAP is the best plaque imaging predictor of MACE risk, so this lack of significance is disappointing. I am not sure running the study another 9 months will increase this LAP effect enough to make it significant, but maybe we will get lucky. FWIW - LAP does not appear to be a composite measure, so the other findings that are significant seem truly independent (but potentially not as clinically relevant).