sts - Good point about that fireside quote: "Elevated triglycerides, they defined as 200 above. We had a 38% relative risk reduction in that higher risk patient population."
38% is 50% higher than 25%, which is remarkable (assuming he was referring to primary endpoint and didn't misspeak). I find that puzzling since I thought Prof Bhatt said similar benefit were obtained whether trigs were high or low (which is good from a market size perspective). The 38% may be for those with both trigs over 200 and low HDL.
As I posted earlier, RI benefits didn't seem to take effect until after a start-up period of over a year, which means the long-term benefits are substantially higher than was reported (by about 40% or more). This effect could be even larger for high-trig subjects, since more of them were enrolled later. So, there may well be subgroups of higher risk subjects whose RRR reach Chas-esque levels (40%+) if the startup period is excluded. This effect may be even larger for CV death if it turns out to have a longer startup period, as I speculated in a previous post.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
