Resverlogix Corp T.RVX

RE:Problem is event numbers are small for the 2 secondary

[BearDownAZ]

"Compared to other "failed" secondary end points, the [CHF] event numbers are small."

You do realize that there were only ~2400 patients in this trial, don't you? You do realize that that the trial only had a target of 250 MACE events for the primary endpoint don't you? Have you stopped to consider that the patient population in BETonMACE is not at as high of risk for CHF as some other cardiovascular endpoint in the trial? You do realize that many of the listed endpoints in the forest plot are composites of 2 or more different events and not just one single event, don't you? You do realize that CHF occurred much more than one of the 3-point MACE components (stroke) don't you? You do appreciate that 11/12 (stroke is exception) of the listed secondary cardio endpoints in the forest plot on slide 12 are all in the direction of apabetalone benefit, don't you? Yes, BETonMACE was an underpowered trial, in hindsight, that would have benefited from more patients, accrued events and patient years. But those secondary endpoint cardio data, including CHF, look amazing to me!

"That reminds me of Phase 2b results. Random effects ?? Why Phase 3 results are not consistent with Phase 2 results?"

It is clear to me that you are unfamiliar with the details of the Phase 2 post-hoc analysis of MACE events. You need to appreciate that the Phase 2 post-hocs were based on even a smaller number of observed events that you are criticizing in BETonMACE. You need to pay attention to 3-point MACE vs 5-point MACE. You need to pay attention to how many patients in Phase 2 post-hocs were diabetics like in BETonMACE. You need to appreciate the BETonMACE is a very different patient population that is all diabetics, low-HDL, recent ACS....super high risk. You need to appreciate that these Phase 2s were only for up to 6 months. If you care to educate yourself, you should see here:

https://agoracom.com/ir/Resverlogix/forums/discussion/topics/706042-time-to-add-3-vs-5-pt-mace/messages/2189306

https://agoracom.com/ir/Resverlogix/forums/discussion/topics/653975-5-point-vs-3-point-mace/messages/2052158

So Sikong, what are you calling random and inconsistent? Be more specific instead of doing broad, unsubstantiated bashing.

BDAZ