Arecent clinical trialaimed to see if the drug Pemafibrate could lower the chances of the primary endpoints: myocardial infarction (heart attack), ischemic stroke, coronary revascularization, and death from cardiovascular causes. Additionally, it has been shown that in a previous study, high triglyceride levels have been associated with increasing the chances of those endpoints, so the study also aimed to see if Pemafibrate could lower triglyceride levels (and thus, lower the chances of the primary endpoints occurring). Researchers randomly sampled 5240 subjects to receive Pemafibrate and 5257 to receive a placebo. There were 572 subjects on Pemafibrate that had a primary endpoint and there were 560 subjects on placebo that had a primary endpoint.

a) What is the relative risk and the odds ratio of primary endpoint for patients on Pemafibrate versus placebo (interpret both).

b) Ignoring your answer to (a): The results of the study listed the 95% confidence interval for the relative risk of primary endpoint for patients on Pemafibrate versus placebo as (0.91-1.15). Looking at the confidence interval, what would you conclude about Pemafibrate's effectiveness at lowering the chances of primary endpoint?

c) The researchers also found that Pemafibrate is associated with lowering triglyceride levels. Given your answer to (b), does this make sense? If you answer " no", what might have occurred with their confidence interval or hypothesis test that would cause these results to conflict?