<International Circulation>: The SATURN trial was not a clinical outcomes trial as you mentioned， but in both drug groups， plaque regression was seen and the clinical events rate was quite low (around 7% for both groups) for patients already with established CVD. Do you think we can directly translate plaque regression into clinical outcomes?

  《国际循环》：正如您所说，SATURN试验不是一个临床的结局试验，但是在两个不同的药物组中，在已经确诊心血管疾病的患者，可以看到斑块的消退以及较低的临床事件的发生率（两组大约都在7%），您认为我们能够直接将斑块的消退转化为临床结果吗？
    Prof Antman: I understand that there is a lot of interest and discussion about SATURN. I think though， that we really need to put it into perspective. This was not an outcomes study. This was a study looking at an intermediate endpoint which is plaque volume. What we don’t really know is what size plaque or what degree of plaque shrinkage actually translates into how well a patient will do on that medical regimen. We are missing the connection between those two pieces of information. If this had been a study with tens-of-thousands of patients in each arm and actually looked at clinical events， I think we would be talking about it a bit more in that regard. There were many studies presented in these scientific sessions that actually did report clinical outcomes and those are the ones I paid particular attention to since I feel they are the ones that are going to have the most direct impact on clinical practice.

    Antman教授: 我理解关于SATURN人们兴趣浓厚并且有很多的讨论。我认为，我们确实需要将其归为展望未来的内容中。这并不是一个结果研究，它是观察斑块体积的中间终点的研究。我们真的不知道的是斑块的大小或斑块收缩程度， 而转化为接受上述医疗方案治疗的患者效果如何得好。如果该研究在某一方面有成千上万的患者观察到临床事件，我认为我们应该在这方面多谈论一些。这些科学峰会上报告的许多研究事实上确实汇报了临床结果，并且我特别关注了这些结果，因为我感觉他们可能将对临床实践产生最重要的直接的影响。