Read the primary source rather than the write-up and the two do not agree, so here is what is actually in it.
ApoB is the more informative number and it is cheap. LDL-C estimates cholesterol mass in atherogenic particles; ApoB counts the particles, and it is particle count that tracks risk — which is why the two can disagree and why the disagreement is the clinically interesting case. Triglycerides fall substantially with weight loss and improved insulin sensitivity, HDL moves modestly, and LDL-C often barely moves at all, which surprises people who expected everything to improve together.
Where I think it is weakest: the completion rate deserves as much attention as the headline, because a large effect among those who finished is a different claim from a large effect among those enrolled.
What would genuinely help is knowing whether an unchanged LDL-C alongside a large triglyceride fall is a good result or a bad one, because ApoB and LDL-C seem to be telling different stories. Numbers rather than impressions, if you have them.
Note on sourcing:
Figures above are from the primary publication rather than the press summary. If a number here disagrees with one you have, post yours and we will work out which of us is reading a secondary source.