Hi again BDAZ and thanks again.

I'm running out of printing ink because I keep printing and reading your posts.

I took my info re 77% relative risk reduction of MACE from Don's graph. I didn't have exact numbers so I approximated the end point data and came up close to the exact data you provided.

What has always amazed me about the graphs is the speed of the rvx-208 impact. In the post hoc analysis of ASSURE/SUSTAIN data their graph presented cumulative MACE events at 15 day intervals up to 210 days and for the DM, CVD low HDL sub-group the evidence was apparent at the first 15 day interval and widened with almost every measure period.

Well we know with an extremely high statistical probability that rvx-208 increases ApoA-l (functional HDL) and we now know much more, as you have pointed out, about the MOA. We also know that the information is being scrutinized by the top scientific minds in the world.

Of course I am very positively biased by what I read. To me ASSURE was not a scientific failure but it was a market failure. As you pointed out they know so much more about the MOA of rvx-208. Ultimatelty it comes down to solid experimental design and then replicating, at some level, the ASSURE/SUSTAIN MACE reduction results. With this steering committee it seems like RVX is in solid hands.

There was something I read recently about the sample for China and it seemed small...?250? I 'm probably wrong in this but I would have expected it to be much bigger and to hopefully take the lead.

GLTA

Cheers

Toinv