Large scale clinical trials demonstrate significant reductions in cardiovascular event rates with statin therapy. The observed benefit of statin therapy, however, may be larger in these trials than that expected on the basis of lipid lowering alone. Emerging evidence from both clinical trials and basic science studies suggest that statins have anti-inflammatory properties, which may additionally lead to clinical efficacy. Measurement of markers of inflammation such as high sensitivity C-reactive protein in addition to lipid parameters may help identify those patients who will benefit most from statin therapy.

In one of the biggest dilemmas facing cardiovascular clinical research, clinical trials are increasingly being required to show benefits on clinical end-points rather than surrogate end-points, while at the same time the incremental benefits of newer treatments are getting smaller. These two factors have a huge impact on sample size, which has led some investigators to design trials to show that the new treatment has an effect similar to that of the standard, rather than outright superiority. Recent examples of fibrinolytic trials that have demonstrated similar effects of two drugs are ASSENT (Assessment of the Safety and Efficacy of a New Thrombolytic)-2, GUSTO (Global Use of Strategies to Open Occluded Coronary Arteries)-III, and COBALT (Continuous Infusion Versus Double-Bolus Administration of Alteplase) [1,2,3,4]. However, as discussed by several authors [5,6,7,8], there are issues with trials of this type that make them considerably less credible than superiority trials.

The Losartan Heart Failure Survival Study (ELITE II) and the Valsartan Heart Failure Trial (Val-HeFT) both evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of a selective angiotensin II receptor antagonist on morbidity and mortality in patients with symptomatic heart failure. The trials differed, however, in terms of their primary hypothesis, study design, and treatment regimens, and this must be taken into consideration when comparing and interpreting the data from these studies. The data are in many ways complementary, and add to our understanding of the optimal treatment of symptomatic heart failure. Additional studies are needed, however, to fully define the role of angiotensin II receptor antagonists in the management of this very heterogeneous group of patients.

The results of recent randomized trials to test the influence of antioxidants on coronary-event rates and prognosis in patients with coronary-artery disease were disappointing. In none of these studies did the use of vitamin E improve prognosis. In contrast, treatment of coronary-artery disease with angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitors reduced coronary-event rates and improved prognosis. ACE inhibition prevents the formation of angiotensin II, which has been shown to be a potent stimulus of superoxide-producing enzymes in atherosclerosis. The findings suggest that inhibition of superoxide production at enzymatic levels, rather than symptomatic superoxide scavenging, may be the better choice of treatment.