...We Welcome You To The Resverlogix HUB withIn The AGORACOM COMMUNITY!

Free
AGORACOM NEWS FLASH

Dear Agoracom Family,

I want to thank all of you for your patience with us over the past 48 hours and apologize for what was admittedly a botched launch of our new site.

As you can see, we have reverted back to the previous version of the site while we address multiple forum functionality flaws that inexplicably made their way into the launch.

To this end:

1.We have identified 8 fundamental but easily fixable flaws that will be corrected in the coming week, so that you can continue to use the forums exactly as you've been accustomed to.

2.Additionally we will also be implementing a couple of design improvements to "tighten up" the look and feel of the forums.

Sincerely,

George et al

Message: What if BETonMACE had more CKD patients?
Reply New Message
Prev Message Back To Forum Threaded View Next Message

"But still we had 22% overall MACE reduction if you usu CHF instead of stroke,.... which is still pretty good,... but WOW numbers for CKD!"

The pre-specified primary endpoint was the 3-point MACE composite of CVD death, non-fatal MI, non-fatal stroke. CHF was not part of the pre-specified primary endpoint. My point of doing that 2X CKD patient exercise was to see how doubling the number of CKD patients would affect the 3-point MACE primary endpoint (CVD death, non-fatal MI, non-fatal stroke). If that hypothetical 22% RRR for 3-point MACE in my 2X CKD patient exercise would have been statistically significant (p<0.05), BETonMACE would have been considered a success instead of being stuck w/ a non-significant p=0.11 "failure." 

And BTW Paladin....as Cabel realized and pointed out, those 48 (13 vs. 35) were the number of observed 3-point MACE events in the apabetalone vs. placebo CKD sub-group, not the number of patients (124 vs. 164). 

BDAZ

5 Recommendations
Reply New Message
Prev Message Back To Forum Threaded View Next Message
Share
Share
New Message
Please login to post a reply