I draw some basic assumptions/conclusions. 

First, the placebo rate was far lower than the trail design (which was MACE rate of 8/100 patient year).  This is best explained by Tada's assertion that the SGLT2 drugs given to all 2400 patients drove the placebo rate down considerably.  Second, based on the chatter on this forum, I am assuming the RRR MACE rate was 30% lower for our drug.  

From my back of the envelope estimates, I get to about 4.7 MACE rate for our drug, and 6.3 MACE for placebo.  Now this should be assumed to be a rough estimate...not a point forecast.  Without more information, I would hazard a range of 4.5/6.1 to 4.9/6.5.

Each additional point on the Forest plot constrain how much the difference between the Lipitor and Crestor sub group results can be.  If Don McCaffrey is to be believed...then not only the Forest plot is compelling, so is the efficacy of Apabetalone on an almost statistical measure.

Looking for the easiest explanation, one can conclude that the Lipitor/Crestor sub-groups could not have a statistically different response function to Apabetalone.  And that would also explain why RVX folks are so excited about our drug.