Cognitive Impairment in Heart Failure

Cognitive impairment (CI) is increasingly recognized as a common adverse consequence of heart failure (HF). Although the exact mechanisms remain unclear, microembolism, chronic or intermittent cerebral hypoperfusion, and/or impaired cerebral vessel reactivity that lead to cerebral hypoxia and ischemic brain damage seem to underlie the development of CI in HF. Cognitive decline in HF is characterized by deficits in one or more cognition domains, including attention, memory, executive function, and psychomotor speed. These deficits may affect patients' decision-making capacity and interfere with their ability to comply with treatment requirements, recognize and self-manage disease worsening symptoms. CI may have fluctuations in severity over time, improve with effective HF treatment or progress to dementia. CI is independently associated with disability, mortality, and decreased quality of life of HF patients. It is essential therefore for health professionals in their routine evaluations of HF patients to become familiar with assessment of cognitive performance using standardized screening instruments. Future studies should focus on elucidating the mechanisms that underlie CI in HF and establishing preventive strategies and treatment approaches

IL7R is associated with CNS infiltration and relapse in pediatric B-cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia

No abstract available

A Web-Based Global Educational Model for Training in Semen Analysis during the COVID-19 Pandemic

Infertility affects between 2.5% and 12% of couples worldwide, with male factor infertility solely accounting for 20% to 30% and contributing to 50% of the overall infertility cases [1]. In the United States alone, infertility affects 9.5% of men [2]. The clinical evaluation of male infertility is based on the semen analysis where the results can significantly influence the diagnostic interpretation and management. While many clinicians rely on semen parameters as a surrogate marker of a man’s ability to father a child, the results of semen analysis should, however, be interpreted with caution considering its inherent limitations [3,4]. A properly performed semen analysis and an adequate clinical examination of the male along with questions regarding current medical conditions and lifestyle circumstances that could affect sample quality, can provide valuable information related to a man’s fertility potential. This information facilitates a better understanding of the physiology of the reproductive organs and the underlying causes of dysfunction [5- 7]. However, manual semen analysis has its inherent challenges associated with high subjectivity, lack of standardization, inadequate quality control and quality assurance, as well as inadequate assessment of competency, and training of laboratory personnel performing the test [7,8]. Unlike sperm concentration and motility, sperm morphology has even more subjectivity in reporting the results, with increased intra- and intervariability [8-10]. Therefore, quality control is imminent in preventing such variations and retaining uniformity in all assessments by all operators. This includes preanalytical (test requisition, correct sample collection, delivery of sample), analytical (mixing and loading of sample, correct preparation of smears or calculation of results), and post-analytical (correct reporting of results to the clinician) indicators. To minimize errors, daily, weekly, or monthly quality control of reagents and equipment is imperative

Technical Aspects and Clinical Limitations of Sperm DNA Fragmentation Testing in Male Infertility: A Global Survey, Current Guidelines, and Expert Recommendations

PURPOSE: Sperm DNA fragmentation (SDF) is a functional sperm abnormality that can impact reproductive potential, for which four assays have been described in the recently published sixth edition of the WHO laboratory manual for the examination and processing of human semen. The purpose of this study was to examine the global practices related to the use of SDF assays and investigate the barriers and limitations that clinicians face in incorporating these tests into their practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Clinicians managing male infertility were invited to complete an online survey on practices related to SDF diagnostic and treatment approaches. Their responses related to the technical aspects of SDF testing, current professional society guidelines, and the literature were used to generate expert recommendations via the Delphi method. Finally, challenges related to SDF that the clinicians encounter in their daily practice were captured. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 436 reproductive clinicians. Overall, terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase deoxyuridine triphosphate Nick-End Labeling (TUNEL) is the most commonly used assay chosen by 28.6%, followed by the sperm chromatin structure assay (24.1%), and the sperm chromatin dispersion (19.1%). The choice of the assay was largely influenced by availability (70% of respondents). A threshold of 30% was the most selected cut-off value for elevated SDF by 33.7% of clinicians. Of respondents, 53.6% recommend SDF testing after 3 to 5 days of abstinence. Although 75.3% believe SDF testing can provide an explanation for many unknown causes of infertility, the main limiting factors selected by respondents are a lack of professional society guideline recommendations (62.7%) and an absence of globally accepted references for SDF interpretation (50.3%). CONCLUSIONS: This study represents the largest global survey on the technical aspects of SDF testing as well as the barriers encountered by clinicians. Unified global recommendations regarding clinician implementation and standard laboratory interpretation of SDF testing are crucial

Technical aspects and clinical limitations of sperm DNA fragmentation testing in male infertility: A global survey, current guidelines, and expert recommendations

Purpose Sperm DNA fragmentation (SDF) is a functional sperm abnormality that can impact reproductive potential, for which four assays have been described in the recently published sixth edition of the WHO laboratory manual for the examination and processing of human semen. The purpose of this study was to examine the global practices related to the use of SDF assays and investigate the barriers and limitations that clinicians face in incorporating these tests into their practice. Materials and Methods Clinicians managing male infertility were invited to complete an online survey on practices related to SDF diagnostic and treatment approaches. Their responses related to the technical aspects of SDF testing, current professional society guidelines, and the literature were used to generate expert recommendations via the Delphi method. Finally, challenges related to SDF that the clinicians encounter in their daily practice were captured. Results The survey was completed by 436 reproductive clinicians. Overall, terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase deoxyuridine triphosphate Nick-End Labeling (TUNEL) is the most commonly used assay chosen by 28.6%, followed by the sperm chromatin structure assay (24.1%), and the sperm chromatin dispersion (19.1%). The choice of the assay was largely influenced by availability (70% of respondents). A threshold of 30% was the most selected cut-off value for elevated SDF by 33.7% of clinicians. Of respondents, 53.6% recommend SDF testing after 3 to 5 days of abstinence. Although 75.3% believe SDF testing can provide an explanation for many unknown causes of infertility, the main limiting factors selected by respondents are a lack of professional society guideline recommendations (62.7%) and an absence of globally accepted references for SDF interpretation (50.3%). Conclusions This study represents the largest global survey on the technical aspects of SDF testing as well as the barriers encountered by clinicians. Unified global recommendations regarding clinician implementation and standard laboratory interpretation of SDF testing are crucial

Controversy and consensus on the management of elevated sperm DNA fragmentation in male infertility: A global survey, current guidelines, and expert recommendations

Purpose Sperm DNA fragmentation (SDF) has been associated with male infertility and poor outcomes of assisted reproductive technology (ART). The purpose of this study was to investigate global practices related to the management of elevated SDF in infertile men, summarize the relevant professional society recommendations, and provide expert recommendations for managing this condition. Materials and Methods An online global survey on clinical practices related to SDF was disseminated to reproductive clinicians, according to the CHERRIES checklist criteria. Management protocols for various conditions associated with SDF were captured and compared to the relevant recommendations in professional society guidelines and the appropriate available evidence. Expert recommendations and consensus on the management of infertile men with elevated SDF were then formulated and adapted using the Delphi method. Results A total of 436 experts from 55 different countries submitted responses. As an initial approach, 79.1% of reproductive experts recommend lifestyle modifications for infertile men with elevated SDF, and 76.9% prescribe empiric antioxidants. Regarding antioxidant duration, 39.3% recommend 4–6 months and 38.1% recommend 3 months. For men with unexplained or idiopathic infertility, and couples experiencing recurrent miscarriages associated with elevated SDF, most respondents refer to ART 6 months after failure of conservative and empiric medical management. Infertile men with clinical varicocele, normal conventional semen parameters, and elevated SDF are offered varicocele repair immediately after diagnosis by 31.4%, and after failure of antioxidants and conservative measures by 40.9%. Sperm selection techniques and testicular sperm extraction are also management options for couples undergoing ART. For most questions, heterogenous practices were demonstrated. Conclusions This paper presents the results of a large global survey on the management of infertile men with elevated SDF and reveals a lack of consensus among clinicians. Furthermore, it demonstrates the scarcity of professional society guidelines in this regard and attempts to highlight the relevant evidence. Expert recommendations are proposed to help guide clinicians