of... So I think we agree that we have a certain body of evidence that’s applicable to this
population. I guess the question at hand is, what level of concern might we have for a
different population? That is, a population for example with established coronary
disease. The truth of the matter is that we don’t have the exposure but I guess I am sort
of throwing back, Do we have the reason to believe that the relative risk would go in one
direction in this population and in another direction in that population?
DR. TEERLINK: I think it’s not.
DR. KONSTAM: Do you have evidence that it actually - do you have
DR. SAVAGE: I agree with several of the comments Marvin has made
and so forth, but I think that - and I feel reasonably reassured from the data that I have
absolute risk. Okay. So the absolute risk in a non-ischemic heart disease population
from these drugs is small but as far as I know, the relative risk is the same. That there is
an increased relative risk, it’s not true. Well, how do you know it is not true? I think it is
DR. BURMAN: This issue is a little off point.
DR. KONSTAM: Well, but I think where it is on point is the question
particular reason to be concerned about some of the others. Although, theoretically that’s
possible. I think one of things that we have learned from the publication of several large
Scribes, LLC Toll Free 1-800-675-8846 www.scribesllc.com
enough evidence? I mean I am not sure how we know that.
seen, certainly for the patients that were in the studies, but at least I don’t have a
DR. TEERLINK: I tried to address that by suggesting that it’s hard to
have coronary events if you don’t in fact have underlying coronary disease.
DR. BURMAN: Thank you. Are there any other comments please? Dr.