Two new species of Trichoglossum (Geoglossaceae, Ascomycota) from south Mexico

Two new species of Trichoglossum are described from south Mexico based on morphological and molecular evidence. Trichoglossum caespitosum is characterized by the caespitose ascomata, rough and coiled paraphy-ses and the ascospores with 9-11 septa. Trichoglossum tropicale is characterized by the capitate ascomata, clavate and straight paraphyses and the ascospores with 10-12 septa. Both species grow in the tropical forests of the Yucatan peninsula. Here we provide descriptions and photographs for these species, together with a phylogenetic analyses based on the DNA sequences of nuc rDNA (ITS region and 28S gene) and a comparative table for the species known for America

Elaphomyces castilloi (Elaphomycetaceae, Ascomycota) and Entoloma secotioides (Entolomataceae, Basidiomycota), two new sequestrate fungi from tropical montane cloud forest from south Mexico

Two new species of sequestrate fungi are described from south Mexico based on morphological and molecular evidences. Here we describe Elaphomyces castilloi characterized by the yellowish mycelial mat, dull blue gleba and ascospores of 9.7–11.5 µm; Entoloma secotioides is characterized by the secotioid basidiomata, sulcate, pale cream pileus, and basidiospores of 7–13 × 5–9 µm. Both species grow in montane cloud forest under Quercus sp. in the state of Chiapas, Mexico. Descriptions, photographs, and multilocus phylogeny for both species are presented

New Ascomycetes from the Mexican Tropical Montane Cloud Forest

The tropical montane cloud forest is the most diverse and threatened vegetation type in Mexico. In the last decade, the number of described Ascomycetes species has notably increased, reaching more than 1300 species. This study describes six new species based on their molecular and morphological characteristics. Our results suggest that Mexico has the highest number of described species in the Neotropics. However, many other Mexican lineages still need to be described

Health-status outcomes with invasive or conservative care in coronary disease

BACKGROUND In the ISCHEMIA trial, an invasive strategy with angiographic assessment and revascularization did not reduce clinical events among patients with stable ischemic heart disease and moderate or severe ischemia. A secondary objective of the trial was to assess angina-related health status among these patients. METHODS We assessed angina-related symptoms, function, and quality of life with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) at randomization, at months 1.5, 3, and 6, and every 6 months thereafter in participants who had been randomly assigned to an invasive treatment strategy (2295 participants) or a conservative strategy (2322). Mixed-effects cumulative probability models within a Bayesian framework were used to estimate differences between the treatment groups. The primary outcome of this health-status analysis was the SAQ summary score (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better health status). All analyses were performed in the overall population and according to baseline angina frequency. RESULTS At baseline, 35% of patients reported having no angina in the previous month. SAQ summary scores increased in both treatment groups, with increases at 3, 12, and 36 months that were 4.1 points (95% credible interval, 3.2 to 5.0), 4.2 points (95% credible interval, 3.3 to 5.1), and 2.9 points (95% credible interval, 2.2 to 3.7) higher with the invasive strategy than with the conservative strategy. Differences were larger among participants who had more frequent angina at baseline (8.5 vs. 0.1 points at 3 months and 5.3 vs. 1.2 points at 36 months among participants with daily or weekly angina as compared with no angina). CONCLUSIONS In the overall trial population with moderate or severe ischemia, which included 35% of participants without angina at baseline, patients randomly assigned to the invasive strategy had greater improvement in angina-related health status than those assigned to the conservative strategy. The modest mean differences favoring the invasive strategy in the overall group reflected minimal differences among asymptomatic patients and larger differences among patients who had had angina at baseline

Initial invasive or conservative strategy for stable coronary disease

BACKGROUND Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, whether clinical outcomes are better in those who receive an invasive intervention plus medical therapy than in those who receive medical therapy alone is uncertain. METHODS We randomly assigned 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia to an initial invasive strategy (angiography and revascularization when feasible) and medical therapy or to an initial conservative strategy of medical therapy alone and angiography if medical therapy failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. A key secondary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or myocardial infarction. RESULTS Over a median of 3.2 years, 318 primary outcome events occurred in the invasive-strategy group and 352 occurred in the conservative-strategy group. At 6 months, the cumulative event rate was 5.3% in the invasive-strategy group and 3.4% in the conservative-strategy group (difference, 1.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8 to 3.0); at 5 years, the cumulative event rate was 16.4% and 18.2%, respectively (difference, 121.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 124.7 to 1.0). Results were similar with respect to the key secondary outcome. The incidence of the primary outcome was sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction; a secondary analysis yielded more procedural myocardial infarctions of uncertain clinical importance. There were 145 deaths in the invasive-strategy group and 144 deaths in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.32). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of ischemic cardiovascular events or death from any cause over a median of 3.2 years. The trial findings were sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction that was used