"What can we expect the RRR to be with the much larger BOM diabetic patient population?"

BETonMACE will have more patients, more MACE events, longer dosing, and more patient years than the Phase 2 trials. So BETonMACE is much better powered to investigate MACE effects than the pooled Phase 2 post-hocs. I would be extremely happy if BETonMACE achieved 55-77% RRR in 5-point MACE! But seriously, the reason for running BETonMACE is to formally test the hypotheses created from the Phase 2 post-hoc MACE observations. The Phase 2's were never powered to test for MACE. Hopefully the MACE observations from these Phase 2's are reproducible and nearly as impressive in BETonMACE, but that is why clinical trials are run.....to test hypotheses! Not the answer you're looking for, but any number I threw out would be meaningless.

".....would i be right in saying it should be higher cause we have even sicker patients,...?"

Yes, the BETonMACE patients are likely at even higher CVD risk than the diabetic patients in the Phase 2s. BETonMACE has the recent ACS requirement, which puts the patients at high risk for subsequent MACE. This is one reason to proceed with caution for assuming same 5-point MACE observations between Phase 2's and BETonMACE.

"All this even if we do not meet primary endpoint,...?"

If we don't meet the primary endpoint for 3-point MACE, it is extremely unlikely (impossible?) that adding in hospitalization for unstable angina or coronary revascularization (the additional 2-point MACE categories to make it 5-point MACE) is going to influence the %RRR value much. Even in the rare chance that 3-point MACE fails but 5-point MACE succeeds, this would mean that apabetalone failed to show reductions in the events that matter (CVD death, non-fatal MI, non-fatal stroke). No one is going to be excited, in my opinion, for a drug that doesn't reduce CVD death, non-fatal MI, non-fatal and stroke, but only reduces hospitalization for unstable angina or coronary revascularization.

BDAZ