“I don't think ASSURE wasn't sufficiently powered to do that analysis.  And they would have needed some a priori hypothesis and prior evidence to justify that subgroup analysis.”

I guess my question would have been why was the trial not designed to be sufficiently powered to do this analysis?  As far as an a priori hypothesis and prior evidence justifying the sub group analysis, how about the study in the NEJM which compared rosuvastatin and atorvastatin. It found that rosuvastatin was more effective at both lowering LDL and raising HDL so it would seem the drugs perhaps act differently somehow?

Regardless of the above, interesting that the study was done with maximum doses of each drug over 2 years and during that time plaque was regressed with both drugs by about 1%. The fact that rosuvastatin + Apabetalone regressed plaque by about 50% more than that in a quarter of the time suggests there is perhaps something special about that combo at least.  A summary of that study was published December 2011 in ACC’s CardioSmart.