The Pentagon Copying Test and the Clock Drawing Test as Prognostic Markers in Dementia with Lewy Bodies

Aims: To determine whether the pentagon copying test (PCT) and the clock drawing test (CDT) are associated with nursing home admission or survival in dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB). Methods: The PCT and/or the CDT were retrospectively collected from 103 clinically diagnosed probable DLB patients at a university medical center and general hospital. Patients with high versus low scores on these tests were compared. Results: Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that patients with a low score on the PCT had a shorter time to nursing home admission than patients with a high score (log-rank χ2 = 6.1, p = 0.01). Patients with a low score on the PCT or the CDT had a shorter survival than patients with a high score (log-rank χ2 = 5.4, p = 0.02, and log-rank χ2 = 11.2, p < 0.001, respectively). Cox regression analyses showed the same associations with an HR of 2.2 (95% CI 1.2–4.1) for the PCT and an HR of 2.9 (95% CI 1.6–5.4) for the CDT. Conclusion: The PCT and the CDT may function as prognostic markers in DLB. This finding is clinically relevant as these tests can be applied easily in the clinical setting and can provide valuable prognostic information. Furthermore, it may improve disease management and patient selection for research purposes

LRP10 interacts with SORL1 in the intracellular vesicle trafficking pathway in non-neuronal brain cells and localises to Lewy bodies in Parkinson's disease and dementia with Lewy bodies

Loss-of-function variants in the low-density lipoprotein receptor-related protein 10 (LRP10) gene have been associated with autosomal-dominant Parkinson's disease (PD), PD dementia, and dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB). Moreover, LRP10 variants have been found in individuals diagnosed with progressive supranuclear palsy and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Despite this genetic evidence, little is known about the expression and function of LRP10 protein in the human brain under physiological or pathological conditions. To better understand how LRP10 variants lead to neurodegeneration, we first performed an in-depth characterisation of LRP10 expression in post-mortem brains and human-induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC)-derived astrocytes and neurons from control subjects. In adult human brain, LRP10 is mainly expressed in astrocytes and neurovasculature but undetectable in neurons. Similarly, LRP10 is highly expressed in iPSC-derived astrocytes but cannot be observed in iPSC-derived neurons. In astrocytes, LRP10 is present at trans-Golgi network, plasma membrane, retromer, and early endosomes. Interestingly, LRP10 also partially co-localises and interacts with sortilin-related receptor 1 (SORL1). Furthermore, although LRP10 expression and localisation in the substantia nigra of most idiopathic PD and DLB patients and LRP10 variant carriers diagnosed with PD or DLB appeared unchanged compared to control subjects, significantly enlarged LRP10-positive vesicles were detected in a patient carrying the LRP10 p.Arg235Cys variant. Last, LRP10 was detected in Lewy bodies (LB) at late maturation stages in brains from idiopathic PD and DLB patients and in LRP10 variant carriers. In conclusion, high LRP10 expression in non-neuronal cells and undetectable levels in neurons of control subjects indicate that LRP10-mediated pathogenicity is initiated via cell non-autonomous mechanisms, potentially involving the interaction of LRP10 with SORL1 in vesicle trafficking pathways. Together with the specific pattern of LRP10 incorporation into mature LBs, these data support an important mechanistic role for disturbed vesicle trafficking and loss of LRP10 function in neurodegenerative diseases

Overview of data-synthesis in systematic reviews of studies on outcome prediction models

Background: Many prognostic models have been developed. Different types of models, i.e. prognostic factor and outcome prediction studies, serve different purposes, which should be reflected in how the results are summarized in reviews. Therefore we set out to investigate how authors of reviews synthesize and report the results of primary outcome prediction studies. Methods: Outcome prediction reviews published in MEDLINE between October 2005 and March 2011 were eligible and 127 Systematic reviews with the aim to summarize outcome prediction studies written in English were identified for inclusion. Characteristics of the reviews and the primary studies that were included were independently assessed by 2 review authors, using standardized forms. Results: After consensus meetings a total of 50 systematic reviews that met the inclusion criteria were included. The type of primary studies included (prognostic factor or outcome prediction) was unclear in two-thirds of the reviews. A minority of the reviews reported univariable or multivariable point estimates and measures of dispersion from the primary studies. Moreover, the variables considered for outcome prediction model development were often not reported, or were unclear. In most reviews there was no information about model performance. Quantitative analysis was performed in 10 reviews, and 49 reviews assessed the primary studies qualitatively. In both analyses types a range of different methods was used to present the results of the outcome prediction studies. Conclusions: Different methods are applied to synthesize primary study results but quantitative analysis is rarely performed. The description of its objectives and of the primary studies is suboptimal and performance parameters of the outcome prediction models are rarely mentioned. The poor reporting and the wide variety of data synthesis strategies are prone to influence the conclusions of outcome prediction reviews. Therefore, there is much room for improvement in reviews of outcome prediction studies. (aut.ref.

A short versus a long time interval between semen collection and intrauterine insemination: a randomized controlled clinical trial

STUDY QUESTION: Does a short interval (i.e. ≤90 min), compared to a long interval (i.e. ≥180 min), between semen collection and intrauterine insemination (IUI) increase the cumulative chance of an ongoing pregnancy after six IUI cycles? SUMMARY ANSWER: A long interval between semen collection and IUI resulted in a borderline significant improvement in cumulative ongoing pregnancies and a statistically significant shorter time to pregnancy. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Retrospective studies assessing the effect of the time interval between semen collection and IUI on pregnancy outcomes have shown inconclusive results. Some studies have indicated a beneficial effect of a short interval between semen collection and IUI on IUI outcomes, while others have not found any differences. To date, no prospective trials have been published on this subject. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: The study was performed as a non-blinded, single-center RCT with 297 couples undergoing IUI treatment in a natural or stimulated cycle. The study was conducted between February 2012 and December 2018. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Couples with unexplained or mild male subfertility and an indication for IUI were randomly assigned for up to six IUI cycles into either the control group (long interval, i.e. 180 min or more between semen collection and insemination) or the study group (short interval, i.e. insemination as soon as possible after semen processing and within 90 min of semen collection). The study was carried out in an academic hospital-based IVF center in the Netherlands. The primary endpoint of the study was ongoing pregnancy rate per couple, defined as a viable intrauterine pregnancy at 10 weeks after insemination. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: In the short interval group, 142 couples were analyzed versus 138 couples in the long interval group. In the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, the cumulative ongoing pregnancy rate was significantly higher in the long interval group (71/138; 51.4%) compared to that in the short interval group (56/142; 39.4%; relative risks 0.77; 95% CI 0.59-0.99; P = 0.044). The time to pregnancy was significantly shorter in the long interval group (log-rank test, P = 0.012). A Cox regression analysis showed similar results (adjusted hazard ratio 1.528, 95% CI 1.074-2.174, P = 0.019). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Limitations of our study are the non-blinded design, the long inclusion and follow-up period of nearly seven years and the large number of protocol violations, especially because they predominantly occurred in the short interval group. The non-significant results in the per-protocol (PP) analyses and the weaknesses of the study should be taken into account in the assessment of the borderline significance of the results in the ITT analyses. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Because it is not necessary to perform the IUI immediately after semen processing, there can be more time available to choose the optimum work-flow and clinic occupancy. Clinics and laboratories should find their optimal timing of insemination, considering the time between human chorionic gonadotropin injection and insemination in relation to the sperm preparation techniques used as well as the storage time and conditions until insemination. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): There were no external funding and no competing interests to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Dutch trial registry, trial registration number NTR3144. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 14 November 2011. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT’S ENROLLMENT: 5 February 2012

Immobilization or mobilization after IUI: an RCT

STUDY QUESTION: Does 15 min of immobilization after IUI improve pregnancy rates? SUMMARY ANSWER: Immobilization for 15 min after IUI does not improve pregnancy rates. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Prior RCTs report a beneficial effect of supine immobilization for 15 min following IUI compared to immediate mobilization, however, these studies can be criticized. Given the importance for the logistics in daily practice and the lack of biological plausibility we planned a replication study prior to potential implementation of this procedure. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A single centre RCT, based in an academic setting in the Netherlands, was performed. Participants were randomly assigned for 15 min of supine immobilization following IUI for a maximum of six cycles compared to the standard procedure of immediate mobilization following IUI. Participants and caregivers were not blinded to group assignment. An independent researcher used computer-generated tables to allocate treatments. Stratification occurred to the indication of IUI (unexplained or mild male subfertility). Revelation of allocation took place just before the insemination by the caregiver. The primary outcome was ongoing pregnancy rate per couple. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: A total of 498 couples diagnosed with unexplained or mild male subfertility and an indication for treatment with IUI were approached and randomized in the study, of which 244 participants were assigned to 15 min of supine immobilization and 254 participants to immediate mobilization. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Participant characteristics were comparable between the groups, and 236 participants were analysed in the immobilization group, versus 245 in the mobilization group. The ongoing pregnancy rate per couple was not found to be superior in the immobilization group (one-sided P-value = 0.97) with 76/236 ongoing pregnancies (32.2%) being accomplished in the immobilization and 98/245 ongoing pregnancies (40.0%) in the immediate mobilization group (relative risk 0.81; 95% CI [0.63, 1.02], risk difference: -7.8%, 95% CI [-16.4%, 0.8%]). No difference was found in miscarriage rate, multiple gestation rate, live birth rate and time to pregnancy between the groups. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Owing to discontinuation of the planned treatment not all participants reached six IUI cycles or an ongoing pregnancy. However, this is as expected in IUI treatment and mirrors clinical practice. These participants were equally distributed across the two groups. Women with tubal pathology and endocrine disorders were excluded for this trial, and this might narrow generalizability. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This study shows no positive effect of 15 min of immobilization following IUI on pregnancy rates. Based on available evidence today, including our study, a possible beneficial effect of supine immobilization after IUI is at least doubtful and straightforward implementation does not seem to be justified. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): No funding was received. All authors have nothing to disclose. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Dutch Trial Register NTR 2418. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 20 July 2010. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT's ENROLMENT: 11 August 2010

In vitro development of donated frozen-thawed human embryos in a prototype static microfluidic device: a randomized controlled trial

Objective:\ud To compare the development of human embryos in microfluidic devices with culture in standard microdrop dishes, both under static conditions. \ud \ud Design:\ud Prospective randomized controlled trial. \ud \ud Setting:\ud In vitro fertilization laboratory. \ud \ud Patient(s):\ud One hundred eighteen donated frozen-thawed human day-4 embryos. \ud \ud Intervention(s):\ud Random allocation of embryos that fulfilled the inclusion criteria to single-embryo culture in a microfluidics device (n - 58) or standard microdrop dish (n - 60). \ud \ud Main Outcome Measure(s):\ud Blastocyst formation rate and quality after 24, 28, 48, and 72 hours of culture. \ud \ud Result(s):\ud The percentage of frozen-thawed day-4 embryos that developed to the blastocyst stage did not differ significantly in the standard microdrop dishes and microfluidic devices after 28 hours of culture (53.3% vs. 58.6%) or at any of the other time points. The proportion of embryos that would have been suitable for embryo transfer was comparable after 28 hours of culture in the control dishes and microfluidic devices (90.0% vs. 93.1%). Furthermore, blastocyst quality was similar in the two study groups. \ud \ud Conclusion(s):\ud This study shows that a microfluidic device can successfully support human blastocyst development in vitro under static culture conditions. Future studies need to clarify whether earlier stage embryos will benefit from the culture in microfluidic devices more than the tested day-4 embryos because many important steps in the development of human embryos already take place before day 4. Further improvements of the microfluidic device will include parallel culture of single embryos, application of medium refreshment, and built-in sensors

The addition of a low-quality embryo as part of a fresh day 3 double embryo transfer does not improve ongoing pregnancy rates

Study Question: Does the addition of a low-quality embryo in fresh Day 3 double embryo transfer (DET) affect the ongoing pregnancy rate (OPR) and multiple gestation rate in patients with only one or no high-quality embryos available? Summary Answer: In patients with only one- or no high-quality embryo available, the addition of a low-quality embryo in fresh Day 3 DET does not improve the OPR but increases multiple gestation rates in fresh DET. What is Known Already: Pregnancy rates after DET are considered to be higher compared to single embryo transfer (SET) when analyzed per first embryo transfer only. However, these conclusions are based on RCTs in which mostly patients with two or more high-quality embryos were included, and can therefore not be applied to patients with only one or no high-quality embryo available. This is particularly relevant since it has been suggested that low-quality embryos could impair the implantation of simultaneously transferred embryos by paracrine signaling. Hence, we investigated in patients with only one or no high-quality embryo available whether the addition of a low-quality embryo in DET affects the OPR, multiple gestation rate and miscarriage rate. Study Design Size Duration: This was a retrospective cohort study of 5050 patients receiving 7252 fresh embryo transfers on Day 3 after fertilization in IVF/ICSI cycles from 2012 to 2015 in two academic hospitals. Participants/Materials Setting Methods: We included all women that received fresh SET or DET with any combination of high-quality embryos (7, 8 or 9 blastomeres, with equal to or 0.05). Limitations Reasons for Caution: Limitations to this study include the retrospective design and possible bias between study groups related to embryo transfer policies between 2012 and 2015. Consequently, we may have underestimated pregnancy chances in all DET groups. Furthermore, the OPR was calculated as a percentage of the number of fresh embryo transfers in each study group, and not the total number of started IVF/ICSI cycles. Therefore, the reported pregnancy outcomes may not truly reflect the pregnancy chances of couples at the start of treatment. A possible confounding effect of maternal age in our study is acknowledged but we could not compare clinical outcomes in different age groups separately owing to small sample sizes. Analysis of pregnancy outcomes in lower prognosis patients (higher maternal age, fewer oocytes retrieved) separately is an avenue for future research. Wider Implications of the Findings: The decision to perform DET rather than SET in order to increase the OPR per fresh embryo transfer seems not to be justified for those patients with only one or no high-quality embryo(s) available. However, owing to the limitations of this study, prospective RCTs are needed that specifically investigate pregnancy outcomes in patients with only one or no high-quality embryo(s) available in SET and DET. Study Funding/Competing Interests: This study was funded by a grant from the joint Amsterdam Reproduction & Development Institute of the Academic Medical Center and VU University Medical Center (www.amsterdam-reproduction-and-development.org). The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare