Humans

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, -1.8 percentage points; 95% CI, -4.7 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. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; ISCHEMIA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01471522.).

IMPORTANCE:

Clinical studies have been inconclusive about the effectiveness of N95 respirators and medical masks in preventing health care personnel (HCP) from acquiring workplace viral respiratory infections.

OBJECTIVE:

To compare the effect of N95 respirators vs medical masks for prevention of influenza and other viral respiratory infections among HCP.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:

A cluster randomized pragmatic effectiveness study conducted at 137 outpatient study sites at 7 US medical centers between September 2011 and May 2015, with final follow-up in June 2016. Each year for 4 years, during the 12-week period of peak viral respiratory illness, pairs of outpatient sites (clusters) within each center were matched and randomly assigned to the N95 respirator or medical mask groups.

INTERVENTIONS:

Overall, 1993 participants in 189 clusters were randomly assigned to wear N95 respirators (2512 HCP-seasons of observation) and 2058 in 191 clusters were randomly assigned to wear medical masks (2668 HCP-seasons) when near patients with respiratory illness.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES:

The primary outcome was the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza. Secondary outcomes included incidence of acute respiratory illness, laboratory-detected respiratory infections, laboratory-confirmed respiratory illness, and influenzalike illness. Adherence to interventions was assessed.

RESULTS:

Among 2862 randomized participants (mean [SD] age, 43 [11.5] years; 2369 [82.8%]) women), 2371 completed the study and accounted for 5180 HCP-seasons. There were 207 laboratory-confirmed influenza infection events (8.2% of HCP-seasons) in the N95 respirator group and 193 (7.2% of HCP-seasons) in the medical mask group (difference, 1.0%, [95% CI, -0.5% to 2.5%]; P = .18) (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.18 [95% CI, 0.95-1.45]). There were 1556 acute respiratory illness events in the respirator group vs 1711 in the mask group (difference, -21.9 per 1000 HCP-seasons [95% CI, -48.2 to 4.4]; P = .10); 679 laboratory-detected respiratory infections in the respirator group vs 745 in the mask group (difference, -8.9 per 1000 HCP-seasons, [95% CI, -33.3 to 15.4]; P = .47); 371 laboratory-confirmed respiratory illness events in the respirator group vs 417 in the mask group (difference, -8.6 per 1000 HCP-seasons [95% CI, -28.2 to 10.9]; P = .39); and 128 influenzalike illness events in the respirator group vs 166 in the mask group (difference, -11.3 per 1000 HCP-seasons [95% CI, -23.8 to 1.3]; P = .08). In the respirator group, 89.4% of participants reported "always" or "sometimes" wearing their assigned devices vs 90.2% in the mask group.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:

Among outpatient health care personnel, N95 respirators vs medical masks as worn by participants in this trial resulted in no significant difference in the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza.

TRIAL REGISTRATION:

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01249625.

Clinical trials of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) antagonists in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) have suggested neutral results and treatment is focused on associated symptoms and comorbidities. MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched through October 2019 for randomized controlled studies investigating the effects of different RAAS antagonists in patients with HFpEF. The main outcomes were all-cause mortality, trial defined cardiovascular mortality, and heart failure (HF) hospitalizations. To compare different RAAS antagonists, a random-effects restricted-maximum-likelihood network meta-analysis based on a frequentist framework for indirect and mixed comparisons was used. We used p scores to rank best treatments per outcome. Our search identified 5 eligible clinical trials (PEP-CHF, perindopril; CHARM-preserved, candesartan; I-PRESERVE, irbesartan; TOPCAT, spironolactone; PARAGON-HF, sacubitril-valsartan and valsartan) enrolling a total 10,523 on RAAS antagonists and 6,259 controls. We did not identify any statistical difference in all-cause and cardiovascular mortality among RAAS antagonists and placebo. The combination of sacubitril-valsartan was associated with significantly decreased HF hospitalization risk compared with controls (odds ratio 0.73, 95% confidence interval 0.61 to 0.87) and angiotensin II receptor blockers (odds ratio 0.80, 95% confidence interval 0.71 to 0.91), without heterogeneity among studies (I2 = 0). Angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) ranked better than other RAAS antagonists for HF hospitalizations (p value 0.9). In conclusion, RAAS antagonists do not affect mortality but the combination of sacubitril-valsartan is associated with lower HF hospitalizations in HFpEF patients.

No abstract available