Statins reduce mortality of patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). However, by protocol, trials have excluded patients with chronic heart failure. Since the prevalent etiology of heart failure is CAD, preventing CAD may prevent heart failure progression. Statins may have other beneficial effects besides cholesterol lowering, such as anti-inflammatory properties and improvement of endothelial function. On the contrary, high levels of cholesterol can be beneficial in heart failure patients on the basis of the ability of serum lipoproteins to modulate inflammatory response. Furthermore, statins affecting mitochondrial function can have a deleterious effect on skeletal or cardiac muscles. Despite all these conflicting data, there is no evidence from trials on the effects of statins in patients with heart failure. For this reason, the Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio della Sopravvivenza nell'Infarto Miocardico (GISSI) investigators planned a controlled trial testing the effect of statins in patients with heart failure of different etiology.

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.

The Myocardial Ischemia Reduction with Aggressive Cholesterol Lowering (MIRACL) study was the first trial to assess whether statins might be of clinical benefit in those with recently unstable coronary disease. MIRACL found that high-dose atorvastatin was safe and reduced the incidence of the composite endpoint, death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, resuscitated sudden cardiac death or emergent rehospitalization for recurrent ischemia at 16 weeks when compared with placebo. Despite a number of important study limitations, MIRACL's findings and the prior observation that inpatient initiation of lipid-lowering therapy is associated with higher rates of subsequent utilization, suggest that it is prudent to begin statin therapy when patients present with an acute coronary syndrome.

The Myocardial Ischemia Reduction with Acute Cholesterol Lowering (MIRACL) Trial tested the hypothesis that intensive lowering of cholesterol with atorvastatin (80 mg/day) initiated 24-96 h after an acute coronary syndrome would, over 4 months, reduce the incidence of the composite endpoint of death, nonfatal infarction, resuscitated cardiac arrest, and recurrent symptomatic myocardial ischemia with new objective symptoms requiring emergency rehospitalization. This primary composite endpoint was reduced from 17.4% to 14.8% (P = 0.048) among the 3086 patients enrolled. The results of MIRACL suggest that patients with acute coronary syndromes should begin to receive this treatment before leaving hospital, irrespective of baseline levels of low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol.

The importance of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) control in the management of patients at high risk of cardiovascular events is unquestionable. The major statin trials have shown that the benefits of LDL lowering extend throughout the range of risk and the range of serum cholesterol, and have indicated that the protective effects of the intervention are mostly related to the baseline risk. Statin therapy is, for this reason, currently seen as an anti-atherogenic approach for the majority of high risk individuals and possibly all coronary heart disease patients. This debate is not about the value of statin therapy or the importance of LDL reduction, but about the goals to be set once we decide that LDL cholesterol must be reduced. With the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) guidelines representing a solid middle ground, the two viewpoints in this debate try to argue, on one hand, that the LDL goals should be substantially lower than our current standards or, on the other, that a specific on-treatment LDL value may not be the most important goal to pursue. We defend the latter position by presenting the case that the most effective LDL intervention in high risk patients is to achieve a reduction of at least 30%. This strategy complies with the NCEP guidelines, as most of the high risk patients treated with an average dose of an average statin would experience a 30-40% LDL reduction that would put on-treatment LDL levels safely below goal. Our position differs from both the guidelines and the proponents of more aggressive LDL goals in the management of the two extremes of the cholesterol distribution, where our lack of interest in a predefined on-treatment LDL concentration would make us more aggressive than guidelines on low baseline LDL patients and less aggressive than guidelines on high baseline LDL patients.

Surrogate outcomes are frequently used in cardiovascular disease research. A concern is that changes in surrogate markers may not reflect changes in disease outcomes. Two recent clinical trials (Heart and Estrogen/Progestin Replacement Study [HERS], and the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial [ALLHAT]) underscore this problem since their results contradicted what was expected based on the surrogate outcomes. The current regulatory policy to allow new therapies to be introduced onto the market based solely on surrogate outcomes may need to be reviewed.

Inflammatory cytokines may negatively influence contractility and contribute to the remodelling process in the failing myocardium. Traditional cardiovascular drugs appear to have little influence on the overall cytokine network in chronic heart failure (CHF). Increased interest in anticytokine therapy has therefore evolved. Several small studies have used tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-α as a target, resulting in improved functional capacity and myocardial performance. Intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) represents another therapeutic approach in which the impact on myocardial performance appears to be correlated with anti-inflammatory effects. These studies demonstrate potential for immunomodulation as a therapy in addition to conventional cardiovascular treatment in CHF, but the most effective drugs in this regard have yet to be identified.

Specific blockers of the angiotensin type1 receptor, angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), have been introduced as an alternative to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) for the treatment of heart failure. In comparison with ACEi, ARBs are better tolerated and have similar effects on haemodynamics, neurohormones and exercise capacity. Early studies have suggested that ARBs might have a superior effect on mortality. However, the first outcome trial, ELITE II (Losartan Heart Failure Survival Study), did not show any significant difference between losartan and captopril in terms of mortality or morbidity. This commentary outlines the role of ARBs in the treatment of heart failure.

Long-term treatment with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors reduces post-infarction morbidity and mortality in patients with left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction or symptomatic heart failure. Until recently, the effect of such treatment in patients with preserved LV function has not been known. The results from the Heart Outcome Prevention Evaluation trial have indicated that long-term treatment with ramipril leads to a significant reduction in cardiovascular events in patients with atherosclerotic disease, including those with prior myocardial infarction and preserved LV function. These results suggest that long-term angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition should also be considered in post-infarction patients with normal cardiac function.