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
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
