Abstract: Can risks associated with novelties in assisted reproduction technologies (ARTs) be assessed in a systematic and structured way? SUMMARY ANSWER An ART-specific risk assessment tool has been developed to assess the risks associated with the development of novelties in ART (EuroGTP II-ART). WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY How to implement new technologies in ART is well-described in the literature. The successive steps should include testing in animal models, executing pre-clinical studies using supernumerary gametes or embryos, prospective clinical trials and finally, short- and long-term follow-up studies on the health of the offspring. A framework categorizing treatments from experimental through innovative to established according to the extent of the studies conducted has been devised. However, a systematic and standardized methodology to facilitate risk evaluation before innovations are performed in a clinical setting is lacking. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION The EuroGTP II-ART risk assessment tool was developed on the basis of a generic risk assessment algorithm developed for tissue and cell therapies and products (TCTPs) in the context of the project ‘Good Practices for demonstrating safety and quality through recipient follow-up European Good Tissue and cells Practices II (EuroGTP II)’. For this purpose, a series of four meetings was held in which eight ART experts participated. In addition, several tests and simulations were undertaken to fine-tune the final tool. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS The three steps comprising the EuroGTP II methodology were evaluated against its usefulness and applicability in ART. Ways to improve and adapt the methodology into ART risk assessment were agreed and implemented. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE Assessment of the novelty (Step 1), consisting of seven questions, is the same as for other TCTPs. Practical examples were included for better understanding. Identification of potential risks and consequences (Step 2), consisting of a series of risks and risk consequences to consider during risk assessment, was adapted from the generic methodology, adding more potential risks for processes involving gonadic tissues. The algorithm to score risks was also adapted, giving a specific range of highest possible risk scores. A list of strategies for risk reduction and definition of extended studies required to ensure effectiveness and safety (Step 3) was also produced by the ART experts, based on generic EuroGTP II methodology. Several explanations and examples were provided for each of the steps for better understanding within this field. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION A multidisciplinary team is needed to perform risk assessment, to interpret results and to determine risk mitigation strategies and/or next steps required to ensure the safety in the clinical use of novelties. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS This is a dynamic tool whose value goes beyond assessment of risk before implementing a novel ART in clinical practice, to re-evaluate risks based on information collected during the process. STUDY FUNDING / COMPETING INTEREST(S) This study was called EUROGTP II and was funded by the European Commission (Grant agreement number 709567). The authors declare no competing interests concerning the results of this study.

Abstract: What is the recommended management of ovarian stimulation, based on the best available evidence in the literature? SUMMARY ANSWER The guideline development group formulated 84 recommendations answering 18 key questions on ovarian stimulation. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Ovarian stimulation for IVF/ICSI has been discussed briefly in the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guideline on fertility problems, and the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologist has published a statement on ovarian stimulation in assisted reproduction. There are, to our knowledge, no evidence-based guidelines dedicated to the process of ovarian stimulation. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION The guideline was developed according to the structured methodology for development of ESHRE guidelines. After formulation of key questions by a group of experts, literature searches and assessments were performed. Papers published up to 8 November 2018 and written in English were included. The critical outcomes for this guideline were efficacy in terms of cumulative live birth rate per started cycle or live birth rate per started cycle, as well as safety in terms of the rate of occurrence of moderate and/or severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS). PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Based on the collected evidence, recommendations were formulated and discussed until consensus was reached within the guideline group. A stakeholder review was organized after finalization of the draft. The final version was approved by the guideline group and the ESHRE Executive Committee. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE The guideline provides 84 recommendations: 7 recommendations on pre-stimulation management, 40 recommendations on LH suppression and gonadotrophin stimulation, 11 recommendations on monitoring during ovarian stimulation, 18 recommendations on triggering of final oocyte maturation and luteal support and 8 recommendations on the prevention of OHSS. These include 61 evidence-based recommendations—of which only 21 were formulated as strong recommendations—and 19 good practice points and 4 research-only recommendations. The guideline includes a strong recommendation for the use of either antral follicle count or anti-Müllerian hormone (instead of other ovarian reserve tests) to predict high and poor response to ovarian stimulation. The guideline also includes a strong recommendation for the use of the GnRH antagonist protocol over the GnRH agonist protocols in the general IVF/ICSI population, based on the comparable efficacy and higher safety. For predicted poor responders, GnRH antagonists and GnRH agonists are equally recommended. With regards to hormone pre-treatment and other adjuvant treatments (metformin, growth hormone (GH), testosterone, dehydroepiandrosterone, aspirin and sildenafil), the guideline group concluded that none are recommended for increasing efficacy or safety. LIMITATIONS, REASON FOR CAUTION Several newer interventions are not well studied yet. For most of these interventions, a recommendation against the intervention or a research-only recommendation was formulated based on insufficient evidence. Future studies may require these recommendations to be revised. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS The guideline provides clinicians with clear advice on best practice in ovarian stimulation, based on the best evidence available. In addition, a list of research recommendations is provided to promote further studies in ovarian stimulation. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) The guideline was developed and funded by ESHRE, covering expenses associated with the guideline meetings, with the literature searches and with the dissemination of the guideline. The guideline group members did not receive payment. F.B. reports research grant from Ferring and consulting fees from Merck, Ferring, Gedeon Richter and speaker’s fees from Merck. N.P. reports research grants from Ferring, MSD, Roche Diagnositics, Theramex and Besins Healthcare; consulting fees from MSD, Ferring and IBSA; and speaker’s fees from Ferring, MSD, Merck Serono, IBSA, Theramex, Besins Healthcare, Gedeon Richter and Roche Diagnostics. A.L.M reports research grants from Ferring, MSD, IBSA, Merck Serono, Gedeon Richter and TEVA and consulting fees from Roche, Beckman-Coulter. G.G. reports consulting fees from MSD, Ferring, Merck Serono, IBSA, Finox, Theramex, Gedeon-Richter, Glycotope, Abbott, Vitrolife, Biosilu, ReprodWissen, Obseva and PregLem and speaker’s fees from MSD, Ferring, Merck Serono, IBSA, Finox, TEVA, Gedeon Richter, Glycotope, Abbott, Vitrolife and Biosilu. E.B. reports research grants from Gedeon Richter; consulting and speaker’s fees from MSD, Ferring, Abbot, Gedeon Richter, Merck Serono, Roche Diagnostics and IBSA; and ownership interest from IVI-RMS Valencia. P.H. reports research grants from Gedeon Richter, Merck, IBSA and Ferring and speaker’s fees from MSD, IBSA, Merck and Gedeon Richter. J.U. reports speaker’s fees from IBSA and Ferring. N.M. reports research grants from MSD, Merck and IBSA; consulting fees from MSD, Merck, IBSA and Ferring and speaker’s fees from MSD, Merck, IBSA, Gedeon Richter and Theramex. M.G. reports speaker’s fees from Merck Serono, Ferring, Gedeon Richter and MSD. S.K.S. reports speaker’s fees from Merck, MSD, Ferring and Pharmasure. E.K. reports speaker’s fees from Merck Serono, Angellini Pharma and MSD. M.K. reports speaker’s fees from Ferring. T.T. reports speaker’s fees from Merck, MSD and MLD. The other authors report no conflicts of interest. Disclaimer This guideline represents the views of ESHRE, which were achieved after careful consideration of the scientific evidence available at the time of preparation. In the absence of scientific evidence on certain aspects, a consensus between the relevant ESHRE stakeholders has been obtained. Adherence to these clinical practice guidelines does not guarantee a successful or specific outcome, nor does it establish a standard of care. Clinical practice guidelines do not replace the need for application of clinical judgment to each individual presentation, nor variations based on locality and facility type. ESHRE makes no warranty, express or implied, regarding the clinical practice guidelines and specifically excludes any warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular use or purpose. (Full disclaimer available at www.eshre.eu/guidelines.) †ESHRE Pages content is not externally peer reviewed. The manuscript has been approved by the Executive Committee of ESHRE.

Abstract: We have followed-up on the recent genome-wide association (GWA) of the clusterin gene ( CLU) with increased risk for Alzheimer disease (AD), by performing an unbiased resequencing of all CLU coding exons and regulatory regions in an extended Flanders-Belgian cohort of Caucasian AD patients and control individuals ( n = 1930). Moreover, we have replicated genetic findings by targeted resequencing in independent Caucasian cohorts of French ( n = 2182) and Canadian ( n = 573) origin and by performing meta-analysis combining our data with previous genetic CLU screenings. Results In the Flanders-Belgian cohort, we identified significant clustering in exons 5-8 of rare genetic variations leading to non-synonymous substitutions and a 9-bp insertion/deletion affecting the CLU β-chain ( p = 0.02). Replicating this observation by targeted resequencing of CLU exons 5-8 in 2 independent Caucasian cohorts of French and Canadian origin identified identical as well as novel non-synonymous substitutions and small insertion/deletions. A meta-analysis, combining the datasets of the 3 cohorts with published CLU sequencing data, confirmed that rare coding variations in the CLU β-chain were significantly enriched in AD patients (OR MH = 1.96 [95% CI = 1.18-3.25]; p = 0.009). Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) association analysis indicated the common AD risk association (GWA SNP rs11136000, p = 0.013) in the 3 combined datasets could not be explained by the presence of the rare coding variations we identified. Further, high-density SNP mapping in the CLU locus mapped the common association signal to a more 5' CLU region. Conclusions We identified a new genetic risk association of AD with rare coding CLU variations that is independent of the 5' common association signal identified in the GWA studies. At this stage the role of these coding variations and their likely effect on the β-chain domain and CLU protein functioning remains unclear and requires further studies.

Abstract: The congenital bone marrow failure syndrome Diamond-Blackfan anemia (DBA) is typically associated with variants in ribosomal protein (RP) genes impairing erythroid cell development. Here we report multiple individuals with biallelic HEATR3 variants exhibiting bone marrow failure, short stature, facial and acromelic dysmorphic features, and intellectual disability. These variants destabilize a protein whose yeast homolog is known to synchronize the nuclear import of RPs uL5 (RPL11) and uL18 (RPL5), which are both critical for producing ribosomal subunits and for stabilizing the p53 tumor suppressor when ribosome biogenesis is compromised. Expression of HEATR3 variants or repression of HEATR3 expression in primary cells, cell lines of various origins, and yeast models impairs growth, differentiation, pre–ribosomal RNA processing, and ribosomal subunit formation reminiscent of DBA models of large subunit RP gene variants. Consistent with a role of HEATR3 in RP import, HEATR3-depleted cells or patient-derived fibroblasts display reduced nuclear accumulation of uL18. Hematopoietic progenitor cells expressing HEATR3 variants or small-hairpin RNAs knocking down HEATR3 synthesis reveal abnormal acceleration of erythrocyte maturation coupled to severe proliferation defects that are independent of p53 activation. Our study uncovers a new pathophysiological mechanism leading to DBA driven by biallelic HEATR3 variants and the destabilization of a nuclear import protein important for ribosome biogenesis.

Abstract: Outcome prediction after endovascular treatment (EVT) for ischemic stroke is important to patients, family members, and physicians. Objective To develop and validate a model based on preprocedural and postprocedural characteristics to predict functional outcome for individual patients after EVT. Design, Setting, and Participants A prediction model was developed using individual patient data from 7 randomized clinical trials, performed between December 2010 and December 2014. The model was developed within the Highly Effective Reperfusion Evaluated in Multiple Endovascular Stroke Trials (HERMES) collaboration and external validation in data from the Dutch Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial of Endovascular Treatment for Acute Ischemic Stroke in the Netherlands (MR CLEAN) Registry of patients treated in clinical practice between March 2014 and November 2017. Participants included patients from multiple centers throughout different countries in Europe, North America, East Asia, and Oceania (derivation cohort), and multiple centers in the Netherlands (validation cohort). Included were adult patients with a history of ischemic stroke from an intracranial large vessel occlusion in the anterior circulation who underwent EVT within 12 hours of symptom onset or last seen well. Data were last analyzed in July 2022. Main Outcome(s) and Measure(s) A total of 19 variables were assessed by multivariable ordinal regression to predict functional outcome (modified Rankin Scale [mRS] score) 90 days after EVT. Variables were routinely available 1 day after EVT. Akaike information criterion (AIC) was used to optimize model fit vs model complexity. Probabilities for functional independence (mRS 0-2) and survival (mRS 0-5) were derived from the ordinal model. Model performance was expressed with discrimination (C statistic) and calibration. Results A total of 781 patients (median [IQR] age, 67 [57-76] years; 414 men [53%]) constituted the derivation cohort, and 3260 patients (median [IQR] age, 72 [61-80] years; 1684 men [52%] ) composed the validation cohort. Nine variables were included in the model: age, baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score, prestroke mRS score, history of diabetes, occlusion location, collateral score, reperfusion grade, NIHSS score at 24 hours, and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage 24 hours after EVT. External validation in the MR CLEAN Registry showed excellent discriminative ability for functional independence (C statistic, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.90-0.92) and survival (0.89; 95% CI, 0.88-0.90). The proportion of functional independence in the MR CLEAN Registry was systematically higher than predicted by the model (41% vs 34%), whereas observed and predicted survival were similar (72% vs 75%). The model was updated and implemented for clinical use. Conclusion and relevance The prognostic tool MR PREDICTS@24H can be applied 1 day after EVT to accurately predict functional outcome for individual patients at 90 days and to provide reliable outcome expectations and personalize follow-up and rehabilitation plans. It will need further validation and updating for contemporary patients.