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.

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.

The evidence base for drug treatment of hypertension is strong. Early trials using thiazide diuretics suggested a shortfall in prevention of coronary heart disease. The superiority of newer drugs has been widely advocated but trial evidence does not support an advantage of beta-blockers, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors, calcium channel blockers or alpha-blockers for this outcome. Even meta-analyses have failed to clarify matters. If this issue is to be settled, bigger and better trials of longer duration in high-risk patients are needed. Meanwhile, the importance of rigorous blood pressure control using multiple drugs has been established. This should be the focus of our attention rather than agonising over differences in cause-specific outcomes that may not be generalisable to all patient populations.

Arteriosclerotic vascular disease manifests as heart disease, stroke, aortic aneurysms, and peripheral vascular disease, and is a growing problem world-wide. The preventive efforts made so far have demonstrated that lowering LDL-C is one action that individuals and populations can do with significant success in delaying the onset of clinical events. Epidemiological studies and small clinical trials suggest that more aggressive and sustained lowering to LDL-C below 100 mg/dl could result in 50 to 70% reductions in vascular death. The full benefit of reducing LDL-C is only now being tested in adequate clinical 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.

Biventricular pacing or resynchronisation therapy is a non-pharmacological therapy for patients with chronic heart failure. Since being originally described in 1994, biventricular pacing has become a subject of intense interest and investigation. This review analyses the results reported in observational series and randomised trials, and seeks to answer two questions. If it works, why does it work? Which heart failure patients will it benefit?

Objectives 1. To assess the long-term effectiveness of a comprehensive cardiac rehabilitation programme on quality of life and survival in patients with a large spectrum of cardiovascular diseases (myocardial infarction, acute coronary syndrome, percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty and coronary artery bypass grafting). 2. To establish the degree of correlation between expected improvement of health-related quality of life and improvement in physical function attributable to rehabilitation in the intervention group, in comparison with similar changes in the conventional care group. Design Randomized, controlled, parallel-group design (intervention/conventional care). Setting Akershus County, southeast of Oslo City, Norway. Participants 500 patients, men and women, aged 40-85 years, who have sustained at least one of the above-mentioned cardiovascular diseases. Interventions 8 weeks of supervised, structured physical training of three periods of 20 min per week, targeting a heart rate of 60-70% of the individual's maximum; home-based physical exercise training with the same basic schedule as in the supervised period; quantification of patients' compliance with the exercise programme by the use of wristwatches, information stored in the watch memory being retrieved once a month during the 3-year follow-up period; and life-style modification with an emphasis on the cessation of smoking and on healthy nutrition and weight control.

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.