This may not be the answer to your question, but what struck me about the article is that the possible reduction in stroke risk was mentioned only in passing at the end of the article. Why wasn’t stroke risk considered a more consequential area for investigation when the JELIS trial was designed, and why isn’t it considered a more consequential area for investigation now?
It's worth noting that the incidence of CABG/PTCA was higher in the statin-only group (2.4% vs. 2.1%). If we assume this treatment decreased mortality, then that might explain the lack of mortality benefit.
quiz treatment of cardiac events improved during the time the studies were conducted, so that many events that were fatal in the earlier study were non-fatal in the japanese study ??
JELIS-quiz answer (?)—The clinical benefit observed in the study would presumably be more dramatic in an “enriched” dataset where patients were known to be at high risk for adverse cardiovascular events apart from their cholesterol levels. Thus, a diagnostic such as DDXS’ PLAC test (http://www.diadexus.com/products/index.php ) might enhance the commercial prospects for a drug such as AMRN’s AMR101, particularly in the primary-prevention subgroup.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
