All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
After revisions, two reviewers agreed to publish the manuscript. There is one reviewer left with a minor revision, and I think the author has responded adequately. I also reviewed the manuscript and found no obvious risks to publication. Therefore, I also approved the publication of this manuscript.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Stefano Menini, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The authors have responded adequately to the queries.
Revisions done
Clear and to the point
Thank you for the review. I am very happy with the revision.
No comments.
No comments.
No comments.
In addition to the final minor comments from R2, the other reviewer has identified that the English language must be improved.
PeerJ can provide language editing services if you wish - please contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title). Your revision deadline is always extended while you undergo language editing.
Thank you for the extensive response to the queries layed out by the reviewers. I would recommend a final language and grammar check.
After answering the queries and explaining the limitations, I accept the manuscript as it is.
The validity of the findings has been proved by other studies. This, however, is a study in a new ethnicity.
Thank you very much for the review which has significantly improved the manuscript. I have only one comment: With respect to my prior comment on that AMI is not caused by a diminished blood flow to the coronary arteries but rather to the myocardium, you have in your rebuttal letter stated that this has been changed in the manuscript but it has not. Please rewrite so it is clear that it is diminished blood flow to the myocardium.
None
None
None
the authors revised the manuscript.
the authors revised the manuscript.
the authors revised the manuscript.
the authors revised the manuscript.
Please address the concerns of the expert reviewers, In particular, it has been noted that the number of patients may be inadequate. You must address this important concern.
In addition, the reviewers have noted that the English language must be improved.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: It is PeerJ policy that additional references suggested during the peer-review process should *only* be included if the authors are in agreement that they are relevant and useful #]
[# PeerJ Staff Note: The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services if you wish - please contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title). Your revision deadline is always extended while you undergo language editing. #]
A very interesting subject. However, the authors could have eluded in the introduction to the PARADISE MI trial which also showed no significant difference between sacubitril valsartan and ramipril.
The language and grammar should be revised.
Figure 3 is not important.
I am not sure what is the relevance of blood pressure reduction in cases of ACS.
The design is an essential part, and if you had included more patients, I think this could have been better for statistical analysis. You could clearly see that in the results with the N terminal Pro BNP, which in nearly all studies shows a significant reduction with sacubitril valsartan. The number of anterior MIs is 48 % in one group and 33% in the other, which, according to the statistics, was non significant. How was symptoms assessed? Was there a lot of patients on ticagrelor? As we all know ticagrelor has been known to cause dyspnea which could interfere with the symptoms of the patients.
The validity is skewed because of the number of subjects. The importance of blood pressure lowering is not clinically of significant.
The English is unfortunately poor and must be checked.
Please see more comments in attached PDF-file.
Please see comments in attached PDF-file.
Please see comments in attached PDF-file.
Please see comments in attached PDF-file.
Please,
report few data about the implication of ARNI as remodeling drug in HF patients: Pharmacol Res. 2022 Aug;182:106303. doi: 10.1016/j.phrs.2022.106303. Please reply to the suggested reference.
-Please discuss the cardiac remodeling effects in patients with acute myocardial infarction via myofibroblast phenoconversion (Int J Mol Sci. 2019 Dec 27;21(1):201. doi: 10.3390/ijms2101020), and their activation via exosomal epigenetic effectors (ESC Heart Fail. 2020 Feb;7(1):284-288. doi: 10.1002/ehf2.12584). Please discuss this point.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** It is PeerJ policy that additional references suggested during the peer-review process should only be included if the authors are in agreement that they are relevant and useful.
The study design respects the experimental findings.
It is acceptable.
See the comments reported before.
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.