I believe (just going by memory) it is correct that the futility analysis is to happen at 125 events and not at a specified time. From the perspective of trial success it is however totally incorrect to assume "the longer it takes the better". When the futility analysis takes place and on a proportional basis if half of the events were to take place in the test arm and half in the control arm then trial continuation would likely be deemed "futile". What we are ideally hoping for is that proportionally the vast majority of MAC Events takes place in the control arm of the study with relatively few happenning in the test arm which would mean apabetalone is working.

I have been away for awhile and alot has certainly gone on at this forum. Quite an extensive list of questions, it will be interesting to see if and how they are addressed. IMO, although it is an important issue, I hope the LoC issue can't be addressed in specifics until the SP is higher. I can't see Eastern not following through on their support as with the new investment in Zenith and the reorg they now effectively own about 40% of the RVX royalty preferreds and given that they could lose their downside protection or have to pay off the loan while crippling RVX I really don't see them doing anything other than getting extra warrants in exchange for extending the LoC guarantee. To me the most immediate issue to address is SP as it will factor into the LoC guarantee extension negotiations (ie amount of dilution) and I think the way to do this is clear up and properly share the story with the investment community. As covered in the list to Mgmt, getting real analyst coverage is important and apparently right now real analysts are not satisfied enough with what management is saying to initiate coverage. I think a key, also on the list, is clarifying the IP picture. Could RVX and Zenith wind up going head to head? Mgmt always talks about the 7 year lead on the competition, I don't imagine this holds true with RVX over Zenith. JMO