"Maybe Elixa had a much lower event rate than Examine because of the 180 days instead of 90 days and so we would better to compare to Examine as we are closer to them with 35 days,...no,...?"

That is one side of the coin. The other side of the coin is that EXAMINE may not be truly representative of the diabetic, recent ACS population and could have been an outlier trial. In science and clinical medicine, reproducibility is important. If there were a dozen clinical trials run in similar recent ACS diabetic populations with lots of data to back up the association of time to index ACS event and MACE risk, then we would have more confidence in EXAMINE. However, we do not have that luxury of having too many clinical trials to compare to. So while your logic makes sense, it assumes that EXAMINE is representative and reproducible. 

BearDownAZ