Variations of this post are repeated frequently on this board. There are several inaccuracies presented here, and the message is misleading because some very important fact have been ignored.
First of all the patients were blinded to the drug they were taking...Otherwise if you knew you were in the control group, why bother taking the pills. The trial just was not "double blinded" so doctors did know what the patient was taking. As far as events are concerned there were more events in the placebo group than there were in the active (EPA) group. For example there were twice as many fatal heart attacks in the placebo group than in the EPA group. there were 36 fatal MIs in the placebo, and only 18 in the EPA group. The problem in this case and in the study as a whole was the incidence of CVD events was too low. The annual risk of an event in JELIS was only .8% in the placebo and .6% in the treated group.
Facts are EPA lowered risk about 20% across the board. The only category where the numbers were the same was sudden. Given this was Japan, you have to wonder how many of these "sudden deaths were suicides. So EPA won every other race...The problem was the risk in all groups was so low it would have taken a population of close to 50,000 to make the numbers high enough.. As far as "unstable angina" all of you would be clinicians, who sniff at this, the reason why angina was the most impressive reduction was simply because it has the highest incidence of any of the event categories.. I would like to see some of you skeptics when you get your first bout of angina.
JELIS did have its problems, but looking at it objectively over all it was very impressive. The risk factors in REDUCE-IT are 6-7 times higher. The improvement of the EPA/AA ratio in R-IT should be an order of magnitude higher than JELIS...Do not bet against REDUCE-IT.