I like cityslicker's comments, make sense, 2 concurrent studies, with the same population. Bookend the ACE2/Cytokine storm study, continue on observing/studying the patients with documented heart damage from Covid with a lengthier study and/or additional tests? Separate concurrent studies make the most sense to me so we don't caught up with invalidated sub-study component success due to primary endpoints of one of them falling short ... can anybody name that tune from our recent past? :(

1. Concurrent Study1 - Study and observe apabetalone benefits for ceasing/limiting the "progress" and effects of Covid in infected patients, and further damage to organs.

2. Concurrent Study2 - Further observe apabetalone's potential for stabilizing, rehabilitating, and reversing damage with those where damage has occured, over more time (if needed).

Two distinct studies with specific endpoints, intertwined with subjects and some shared duration, and maybe find further linked "overall" and advanced benefits in the Covid patient prevention/recovery "continuum" ... I'm just not sure about specific study accepted protocols and technicalities, but it seems doable especially given the visibility and urgency of the Covid issues.   

Demonstrable positive benefits in either study would be amazing for us. And we could also use some successful studies in this overall journey for more visibilty and credibility, aside from the potential Covid revenue concept (amazing also if it happened).

And another study(s) from another notable evidence angle supporting apabetalone's benefits to the heart and other organs leading into BoM2 wouldn't suck either - especially shedding more light on the benefits of anti-inflammation as the linchpin for understanding/accepting apabetalone, and why it seems to have potential in so many areas (and isn't just snake oil being carnival barked by our version of PT Barnum (to some)?