KIWI...
These trials and the stats are all about the numbers. Forget about whether or not there were more smokers among Japanese women than Eastern European males(something I find hard to believe); just look at the numbers. The calculated risk of CVD in R-IT is 5% annual in the statin only group. This number is calculated by actuaries and takes into account whether they are primary or secondary interventions, whether they are smokers, overweight, eat too much salt etc.
We know what the risk was in JELIS because we know how many events occurred. We know in the secondary intervention group the risk was 2.3% annual. The primary group was much lower. 2.3% is less than half of 5%.
Forget about more intensive care. The 5% estimated risk in the R-IT group is calculated with the understanding they are taking a full load of statins, and eating their veggies. The idea in R-IT is not to change the lifestyles of the trial participants, it's to add four grams of EPA/day and see if this makes a difference.
Please read the part of my post that says the CVD improvement in JELIS was significant except for mortality..The reason it was not significant is the death rate was too low. IMO if you double the cohort and double the risk; the case here, there is a substantial chance you will see a significant decrease in mortality in the EPA group.
Someone ask if there might be a reason to continue R-IT past the point of significant CVD reduction...One reason would be to achieve mortality significance if nesessay
Have a nice day....":>) JL
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
