Why the study?
Are tissue-specific ACE inhibitors more effective than serum ACE inhibitors in the treatment of coronary artery disease?
Are tissue-specific ACE inhibitors more effective than serum ACE inhibitors in the treatment of coronary artery disease?
Tissue-specific ACE inhibitors are not broadly superior to serum ACE inhibitors for coronary artery disease, though ramipril and perindopril remain recommended for secondary prevention.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Does not support preferring tissue-specific over serum ACE inhibitors in CAD; leaves open agent-specific benefits for secondary prevention.
Since their discovery in the 1980s, angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors have been shown to decrease angiotensin formation, prevent breakdown of bradykinin, and may also act on peptides of the renin-angiotensin system. They are effective in reducing the risk of heart failure, myocardial infarction, and death from cardiovascular causes in patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction or heart failure, and have been shown to reduce atherosclerotic complications in patients who have vascular disease without heart failure. They may preserve endothelial function and counteract initiation and progression of atherosclerosis. Broadly, ACE inhibitors can be divided into tissue specific or serum ACE inhibitors. Tissue-specific ACE inhibitors as a group are not superior to serum ACE inhibitors in the treatment of coronary artery disease. Pending direct comparator clinical trials between a tissue ACE inhibitor and a plasma ACE inhibitor, both ramipril and perindopril can be recommended for secondary risk prevention, based on the evidence.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shah et al. (2005) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: