St Olav's University Hospital

BACKGROUND: Depression is a prevalent and disabling condition in older persons (≥ 60 years) that increases the risk of mortality and negatively influences quality of life (QOL). The relationship between depression, or depressive symptoms, and QOL has been increasingly addressed by research in recent years, but a review that can contribute to a better understanding of this relationship in older persons is lacking. Against this background, we undertook a literature review to assess the relationship between depression and QOL in older persons. SUMMARY: Extensive electronic database searches revealed 953 studies. Of these, 74 studies fulfilled our criteria for inclusion, of which 52 were cross-sectional studies and 22 were longitudinal studies. Thirty-five studies were conducted in a clinical setting, while 39 were community-based epidemiological studies. A clear definition of the QOL concept was described in 25 studies, and 24 different assessment instruments were employed to assess QOL. Depressed older persons had poorer global and generic health-related QOL than nondepressed individuals. An increase in depression severity was associated with a poorer global and generic health-related QOL. The associations appeared to be stable over time and independent of how QOL was assessed. KEY MESSAGES: This review found a significant association between severity of depression and poorer QOL in older persons, and the association was found to be stable over time, regardless which assessment instruments for QOL were applied. The lack of a definition of the multidimensional and multilevel concept QOL was common, and the large variety of QOL instruments in various studies make a direct comparison between the studies difficult.

1. Introduction Chronic pain has been recognized as pain that persists past normal healing time5 and hence lacks the acute warning function of physiological nociception.35 Usually pain is regarded as chronic when it lasts or recurs for more than 3 to 6 months.29 Chronic pain is a frequent condition, affecting an estimated 20% of people worldwide6,13,14,18 and accounting for 15% to 20% of physician visits.25,28 Chronic pain should receive greater attention as a global health priority because adequate pain treatment is a human right, and it is the duty of any health care system to provide it.4,13 The current version of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) of the World Health Organization (WHO) includes some diagnostic codes for chronic pain conditions, but these diagnoses do not reflect the actual epidemiology of chronic pain, nor are they categorized in a systematic manner. The ICD is the preeminent tool for coding diagnoses and documenting investigations or therapeutic measures within the health care systems of many countries. In addition, ICD codes are commonly used to report target diseases and comorbidities of participants in clinical research. Consequently, the current lack of adequate coding in the ICD makes the acquisition of accurate epidemiological data related to chronic pain difficult, prevents adequate billing for health care expenses related to pain treatment, and hinders the development and implementation of new therapies.10,11,16,23,27,31,37 Responding to these shortcomings, the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) contacted the WHO and established a Task Force for the Classification of Chronic Pain. The IASP Task Force, which comprises pain experts from across the globe,19 has developed a new and pragmatic classification of chronic pain for the upcoming 11th revision of the ICD. The goal is to create a classification system that is applicable in primary care and in clinical settings for specialized pain management. A major challenge in this process was finding a rational principle of classification that suits the different types of chronic pain and fits into the general ICD-11 framework. Pain categories are variably defined based on the perceived location (headache), etiology (cancer pain), or the primarily affected anatomical system (neuropathic pain). Some diagnoses of pain defy these classification principles (fibromyalgia). This problem is not unique to the classification of pain, but exists throughout the ICD. The IASP Task Force decided to give first priority to pain etiology, followed by underlying pathophysiological mechanisms, and finally the body site. Developing this multilayered classification was greatly facilitated by a novel principle of assigning diagnostic codes in ICD-11, termed “multiple parenting.” Multiple parenting allows the same diagnosis to be subsumed under more than 1 category (for a glossary of ICD terms refer to Table 1). Each diagnosis retains 1 category as primary parent, but is cross-referenced to other categories that function as secondary parents.Table 1: Glossary of ICD-11 terms.The new ICD category for “Chronic Pain” comprises the most common clinically relevant disorders. These disorders were divided into 7 groups (Fig. 1): (1) chronic primary pain, (2) chronic cancer pain, (3) chronic posttraumatic and postsurgical pain, (4) chronic neuropathic pain, (5) chronic headache and orofacial pain, (6) chronic visceral pain, and (7) chronic musculoskeletal pain. Experts assigned to each group are responsible for the definition of diagnostic criteria and the selection of the diagnoses to be included under these subcategories of chronic pain. Thanks to Bedirhan Üstün and Robert Jakob of the WHO, these pain diagnoses are now integrated in the beta version of ICD-11 (http://id.who.int/icd/entity/1581976053). The Task Force is generating content models for single entities to describe their clinical characteristics. After peer review overseen by the WHO Steering Committee,39 the classification of chronic pain will be voted into action by the World Health Assembly in 2017.Figure 1: Organizational chart of Task Force, IASP, and WHO interactions. The IASP Task Force was created by the IASP council and its scope defined in direct consultation of the chairs (R.D.T. and W.R.) with WHO representatives in 2012. The Task Force reports to the IASP Council on an annual basis.2. Classification of chronic pain Chronic pain was defined as persistent or recurrent pain lasting longer than 3 months. This definition according to pain duration has the advantage that it is clear and operationalized. Optional specifiers for each diagnosis record evidence of psychosocial factors and the severity of the pain. Pain severity can be graded based on pain intensity, pain-related distress, and functional impairment. 2.1. Chronic primary pain Chronic primary pain is pain in 1 or more anatomic regions that persists or recurs for longer than 3 months and is associated with significant emotional distress or significant functional disability (interference with activities of daily life and participation in social roles) and that cannot be better explained by another chronic pain condition. This is a new phenomenological definition, created because the etiology is unknown for many forms of chronic pain. Common conditions such as, eg, back pain that is neither identified as musculoskeletal or neuropathic pain, chronic widespread pain, fibromyalgia, and irritable bowel syndrome will be found in this section and biological findings contributing to the pain problem may or may not be present. The term “primary pain” was chosen in close liaison with the ICD-11 revision committee, who felt this was the most widely acceptable term, in particular, from a nonspecialist perspective. 2.2. Chronic cancer pain Pain is a frequent and debilitating accompaniment of cancer8 that as yet has not been represented in the ICD. The Task Force decided to list it as a separate entity because there are specific treatment guidelines.7,38 Chronic cancer pain includes pain caused by the cancer itself (the primary tumor or metastases) and pain that is caused by the cancer treatment (surgical, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and others). Cancer-related pain will be subdivided based on location into visceral, bony (or musculoskeletal), and somatosensory (neuropathic). It will be described as either continuous (background pain) or intermittent (episodic pain) if associated with physical movement or clinical procedures. The treatment-related pain will be cross-referenced from the chapters on postsurgical pain and neuropathic pain. 2.3. Chronic postsurgical and posttraumatic pain Because pain that persists beyond normal healing is frequent after surgery and some types of injuries, the entity of postsurgical and posttraumatic pain was created. This is defined as pain that develops after a surgical procedure or a tissue injury (involving any trauma, including burns) and persists at least 3 months after surgery or tissue trauma26; this is a definition of exclusion, as all other causes of pain (infection, recurring malignancy) as well as pain from a pre-existing pain problem need to be excluded. In view of the different causality, as well as from a medicolegal point of view, a separation between postsurgical pain and pain after all other trauma is regarded as useful. Depending on the type of surgery, chronic postsurgical pain is often neuropathic pain (on average 30% of cases with a range from 6% to 54% and more).15 Pain including such a neuropathic component is usually more severe than nociceptive pain and often affects the quality of life more adversely.21 2.4. Chronic neuropathic pain Chronic neuropathic pain is caused by a lesion or disease of the somatosensory nervous system.20,22 The somatosensory nervous system provides information about the body including skin, musculoskeletal, and visceral organs. Neuropathic pain may be spontaneous or evoked, as an increased response to a painful stimulus (hyperalgesia) or a painful response to a normally nonpainful stimulus (allodynia). The diagnosis of neuropathic pain requires a history of nervous system injury, for example, by a stroke, nerve trauma, or diabetic neuropathy, and a neuroanatomically plausible distribution of the pain.22 For the identification of definite neuropathic pain, it is necessary to demonstrate the lesion or disease involving the nervous system, for example, by imaging, biopsy, neurophysiological, or laboratory tests. In addition, negative or positive sensory signs compatible with the innervation territory of the lesioned nervous structure must be present.36 Diagnostic entities within this category will be divided into conditions of peripheral or central neuropathic pain. 2.5. Chronic headache and orofacial pain The International Headache Society (IHS) has created a headache classification17 that is implemented in full in the chapter on neurology. This classification differentiates between primary (idiopathic), secondary (symptomatic) headache, and orofacial pain including cranial neuralgias. In the section on chronic pain, only chronic headache and chronic orofacial pain will be included. Chronic headache and chronic orofacial pain is defined as headaches or orofacial pains that occur on at least 50% of the days during at least 3 months. For most purposes, patients receive a diagnosis according to the headache phenotypes or orofacial pains that they currently present. The section will list the most frequent chronic headache conditions. The most common chronic orofacial pains are temporomandibular disorders,32 which have been included in this subchapter of chronic pain. Chronic orofacial pain can be a localized presentation of a primary headache.2 This is common in the trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias, less common in migraines, and rare in tension-type headache. Several chronic orofacial pains such as post-traumatic trigeminal neuropathic pain,3 persistent idiopathic orofacial pain, and burning mouth syndrome are cross-referenced to, eg, primary chronic pain and neuropathic pain. The temporal definition of “chronic” has been extrapolated from that of chronic headaches.1 2.6. Chronic visceral pain Chronic visceral pain is persistent or recurrent pain that originates from the internal organs of the head and neck region and the thoracic, abdominal, and pelvic cavities.24,33,34 The pain is usually perceived in the somatic tissues of the body wall (skin, subcutis, muscle) in areas that receive the same sensory innervation as the internal organ at the origin of the symptom (referred visceral pain).12 In these areas, secondary hyperalgesia (increased sensitivity to painful stimuli in areas other than the primary site of the nociceptive input) often occurs30; the intensity of the symptom may bear no relationship with the extent of the internal damage or noxious visceral stimulation.9 The section on visceral pain will be subdivided according to the major underlying mechanisms, ie, persistent inflammation, vascular mechanisms (ischemia, thrombosis), obstruction and distension, traction and compression, combined mechanisms (eg, obstruction and inflammation concurrently), and referral from other locations. Pain due to cancer will be cross-referenced to the chapter chronic cancer pain and pain due to functional or unexplained mechanisms to chronic primary pain. 2.7. Chronic musculoskeletal pain Chronic musculoskeletal pain is defined as persistent or recurrent pain that arises as part of a disease process directly affecting bone(s), joint(s), muscle(s), or related soft tissue(s). According to the constraints of the approach as described in the Introduction, this category is therefore limited to nociceptive pain and does not include pain that may be perceived in musculoskeletal tissues but does not arise therefrom, such as the pain of compression neuropathy or somatic referred pain. The entities subsumed in this approach include those characterized by persistent inflammation of infectious, autoimmune or metabolic etiology, such as rheumatoid arthritis, and by structural changes affecting bones, joints, tendons, or muscles, such as symptomatic osteoarthrosis. Musculoskeletal pain of neuropathic origin will be cross-referenced to neuropathic pain. Well-described apparent musculoskeletal conditions for which the causes are incompletely understood, such as nonspecific back pain or chronic widespread pain, will be included in the section on chronic primary pain. 3. Outlook Irrespective of its etiology, chronic pain is a major source of suffering and requires special treatment and care. Our proposal may not represent a perfect solution for the classification of all manifestations of chronic pain. However, it does represent the first systematic approach to implementing a classification of chronic pain in the ICD. It is based on international expertise and agreement, and consistent with the requirements of the ICD regarding the structure and format of content models. The 7 major categories of chronic pain were identified after considerable research and discussion. They represent a compromise between comprehensiveness and practical applicability of the classification system. Several clinically important conditions that were neglected in former ICD revisions will now be mentioned, eg, chronic cancer pain or chronic neuropathic pain. Etiological factors, pain intensity, and disability related to pain will be reflected. With the introduction of chronic primary pain as a new diagnostic entity, the classification recognizes conditions that affect a broad group of patients with pain and would be neglected in etiologically defined categories. We hope that this classification strengthens the representation of chronic pain conditions in clinical practice and research and welcome comments to improve it further. Conflict of interest statement Q. Aziz has attended advisory board meetings for Almirall pharmaceuticals and Grunenthal. He has also received funding for clinical trials from Ono Pharmaceutical and Protexin. M.I. Bennett has received consultancy or speaker fees from Pfizer, Bayer, Astellas, and Grunenthal in the last 5 years. M. Cohen has received honoraria for contributions to educational programs from Mundipharma Pty Limited and Pfizer. S. Evers received honoraria (as speaker and/or member of advisory boards) and research grants within the past 5 years by AGA Medical (now St Jude), Allergan, Almirall, Astra Zeneca, Berlin-Chemie, CoLucid, Desitin, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, Ipsen Pharma, Menarini, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Reckitt-Benckiser, UCB. N.B. Finnerup has received speaker's honoraria from Pfizer, Grunenthal, and Norpharma, research grant from Grünenthal, and consultancy fee from Astellas and is member of the IMI “Europain” collaboration where industry members of this are: Astra Zeneca, Pfizer, Esteve, UCB-Pharma, Sanofi Aventis, Grünenthal, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Astellas, Abbott, and Lundbeck. M.B. First on the faculty of the Lundbeck International Neuroscience Foundation. In the past 2 years, M.A. Giamberardino received research funding or honoraria (participation in Advisory Board) from Bayer Healthcare, Helsinn, and Epitech Group. S. Kaasa declares no conflict of interest related to this work. In the past year he received honoraria from Helsinn related to participation in Advisory Board. E. Kosek has received consultancy and speaker fees in the past 24 months from Eli Lilly and Company and Orion and has ongoing research collaborations with Eli Lilly and Company and Abbott and Pierre Fabre. M. Nicholas received honoraria for contributing to educational sessions for Mundipharma and Pfizer in the last 5 years. S. Perrot received honoraria as a speaker and/or member of the advisory board in the past 5 years from Pfizer, BMS, Grunenthal, Elli Lilly, Sanofi, Daichi-Sankyo, Astellas, and Mundipharma. He has received grant support from BMS. W. Rief received honoraria (as speaker and/or member of advisory boards on topics such as adherence, placebo mechanisms) within the past 5 years from Berlin Chemie, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Heel (research grant). J. Scholz has received speaker fees from Convergence, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, St Jude Medical, and Zalicus. He has served on advisory boards or consulted for Convergence, Pfizer, Sanofi Aventis, and Zalicus Pharmaceuticals. He has received grant support from GlaxoSmithKline and Pfizer. In the last 5 years, the Anaesthesiology Unit of the University of Western Australia, but not S. Schug personally, has received research and travel funding and speaking and consulting honoraria from bioCSL, Bionomics, Eli Lilly, Grunenthal, Janssen, Mundipharma, Pfizer, Phosphagenics and iX Biopharma within the last 2 years. B.H. Smith has received lecture and consultancy fees, on behalf of his institution, from Pfizer, Grunenthal, Eli Lilly, and Napp. He has received unconditional educational grants from Pfizer Ltd; and he has received travel and accommodation support from Napp. P. Svensson served as a paid consultant for Sunstar Suisse SA. R.-D. Treede has received speaker's honoraria, research grants or consultancy fees from AbbVie, Acron, Astellas, Bauerfeind, Boehringer Ingelheim, Grünenthal, Hydra, Mundipharma, and Pfizer and is a member of the IMI “Europain” collaboration where industry members of this are: Astra Zeneca, Pfizer, Esteve, UCB-Pharma, Sanofi Aventis, Grünenthal, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Astellas, Abbott, and Lundbeck. J.W.S. Vlaeyen is a member of the PHILIPS advisory board on pain management and declares no conflicts of interest with regard to this work. S.-J. Wang has served on the advisory boards of Allergan and Eli Lilly, Taiwan. He has received speaking honoraria from local companies (Taiwan branches) of Pfizer, Elli Lilly, and GSK. He has received research grants from the Novartis Taiwan, Taiwan Ministry of Science and Technology, Taipei-Veterans General Hospital and Taiwan Headache Society. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. Acknowledgements The authors are members of the Classification of Pain Diseases Task Force of the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP), which gave logistical and financial support to perform this work. We acknowledge the contributions of the following IASP Special Interest Groups (SIGs): Abdominal & Pelvic Pain SIG, Acute Pain SIG, Cancer Pain SIG, Neuropathic Pain SIG and the Orofacial Pain SIG, and the Classification Committee of the International Headache Society (IHS). Author contributions: R.-D. Treede, W. Rief, and A. Barke contributed equally to this topical review.

, much of which is attributable to common risk alleles. Here, in a two-stage genome-wide association study of up to 76,755 individuals with schizophrenia and 243,649 control individuals, we report common variant associations at 287 distinct genomic loci. Associations were concentrated in genes that are expressed in excitatory and inhibitory neurons of the central nervous system, but not in other tissues or cell types. Using fine-mapping and functional genomic data, we identify 120 genes (106 protein-coding) that are likely to underpin associations at some of these loci, including 16 genes with credible causal non-synonymous or untranslated region variation. We also implicate fundamental processes related to neuronal function, including synaptic organization, differentiation and transmission. Fine-mapped candidates were enriched for genes associated with rare disruptive coding variants in people with schizophrenia, including the glutamate receptor subunit GRIN2A and transcription factor SP4, and were also enriched for genes implicated by such variants in neurodevelopmental disorders. We identify biological processes relevant to schizophrenia pathophysiology; show convergence of common and rare variant associations in schizophrenia and neurodevelopmental disorders; and provide a resource of prioritized genes and variants to advance mechanistic studies.

Characterization of the genetic landscape of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and related dementias (ADD) provides a unique opportunity for a better understanding of the associated pathophysiological processes. We performed a two-stage genome-wide association study totaling 111,326 clinically diagnosed/'proxy' AD cases and 677,663 controls. We found 75 risk loci, of which 42 were new at the time of analysis. Pathway enrichment analyses confirmed the involvement of amyloid/tau pathways and highlighted microglia implication. Gene prioritization in the new loci identified 31 genes that were suggestive of new genetically associated processes, including the tumor necrosis factor alpha pathway through the linear ubiquitin chain assembly complex. We also built a new genetic risk score associated with the risk of future AD/dementia or progression from mild cognitive impairment to AD/dementia. The improvement in prediction led to a 1.6- to 1.9-fold increase in AD risk from the lowest to the highest decile, in addition to effects of age and the APOE ε4 allele.

Abstract. The libRadtran software package is a suite of tools for radiative transfer calculations in the Earth's atmosphere. Its main tool is the uvspec program. It may be used to compute radiances, irradiances and actinic fluxes in the solar and terrestrial part of the spectrum. The design of uvspec allows simple problems to be easily solved using defaults and included data, hence making it suitable for educational purposes. At the same time the flexibility in how and what input may be specified makes it a powerful and versatile tool for research tasks. The uvspec tool and additional tools included with libRadtran are described and realistic examples of their use are given. The libRadtran software package is available from http://www.libradtran.org.

) in the discovery GWAS were not genome-wide significant in the combined analysis, consistent with small effect sizes and limited power but also with genetic heterogeneity. In the combined analysis, 30 loci were genome-wide significant, including 20 newly identified loci. The significant loci contain genes encoding ion channels, neurotransmitter transporters and synaptic components. Pathway analysis revealed nine significantly enriched gene sets, including regulation of insulin secretion and endocannabinoid signaling. Bipolar I disorder is strongly genetically correlated with schizophrenia, driven by psychosis, whereas bipolar II disorder is more strongly correlated with major depressive disorder. These findings address key clinical questions and provide potential biological mechanisms for bipolar disorder.

BACKGROUND: Hyperlipidemia has been suggested as a risk factor for stenosis of the aortic valve, but lipid-lowering studies have had conflicting results. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind trial involving 1873 patients with mild-to-moderate, asymptomatic aortic stenosis. The patients received either 40 mg of simvastatin plus 10 mg of ezetimibe or placebo daily. The primary outcome was a composite of major cardiovascular events, including death from cardiovascular causes, aortic-valve replacement, nonfatal myocardial infarction, hospitalization for unstable angina pectoris, heart failure, coronary-artery bypass grafting, percutaneous coronary intervention, and nonhemorrhagic stroke. Secondary outcomes were events related to aortic-valve stenosis and ischemic cardiovascular events. RESULTS: During a median follow-up of 52.2 months, the primary outcome occurred in 333 patients (35.3%) in the simvastatin-ezetimibe group and in 355 patients (38.2%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio in the simvastatin-ezetimibe group, 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83 to 1.12; P=0.59). Aortic-valve replacement was performed in 267 patients (28.3%) in the simvastatin-ezetimibe group and in 278 patients (29.9%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.18; P=0.97). Fewer patients had ischemic cardiovascular events in the simvastatin-ezetimibe group (148 patients) than in the placebo group (187 patients) (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.63 to 0.97; P=0.02), mainly because of the smaller number of patients who underwent coronary-artery bypass grafting. Cancer occurred more frequently in the simvastatin-ezetimibe group (105 vs. 70, P=0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Simvastatin and ezetimibe did not reduce the composite outcome of combined aortic-valve events and ischemic events in patients with aortic stenosis. Such therapy reduced the incidence of ischemic cardiovascular events but not events related to aortic-valve stenosis. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00092677.)

Importance: Cerebral palsy describes the most common physical disability in childhood and occurs in 1 in 500 live births. Historically, the diagnosis has been made between age 12 and 24 months but now can be made before 6 months' corrected age. Objectives: To systematically review best available evidence for early, accurate diagnosis of cerebral palsy and to summarize best available evidence about cerebral palsy-specific early intervention that should follow early diagnosis to optimize neuroplasticity and function. Evidence Review: This study systematically searched the literature about early diagnosis of cerebral palsy in MEDLINE (1956-2016), EMBASE (1980-2016), CINAHL (1983-2016), and the Cochrane Library (1988-2016) and by hand searching. Search terms included cerebral palsy, diagnosis, detection, prediction, identification, predictive validity, accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity. The study included systematic reviews with or without meta-analyses, criteria of diagnostic accuracy, and evidence-based clinical guidelines. Findings are reported according to the PRISMA statement, and recommendations are reported according to the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument. Findings: Six systematic reviews and 2 evidence-based clinical guidelines met inclusion criteria. All included articles had high methodological Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS) ratings. In infants, clinical signs and symptoms of cerebral palsy emerge and evolve before age 2 years; therefore, a combination of standardized tools should be used to predict risk in conjunction with clinical history. Before 5 months' corrected age, the most predictive tools for detecting risk are term-age magnetic resonance imaging (86%-89% sensitivity), the Prechtl Qualitative Assessment of General Movements (98% sensitivity), and the Hammersmith Infant Neurological Examination (90% sensitivity). After 5 months' corrected age, the most predictive tools for detecting risk are magnetic resonance imaging (86%-89% sensitivity) (where safe and feasible), the Hammersmith Infant Neurological Examination (90% sensitivity), and the Developmental Assessment of Young Children (83% C index). Topography and severity of cerebral palsy are more difficult to ascertain in infancy, and magnetic resonance imaging and the Hammersmith Infant Neurological Examination may be helpful in assisting clinical decisions. In high-income countries, 2 in 3 individuals with cerebral palsy will walk, 3 in 4 will talk, and 1 in 2 will have normal intelligence. Conclusions and Relevance: Early diagnosis begins with a medical history and involves using neuroimaging, standardized neurological, and standardized motor assessments that indicate congruent abnormal findings indicative of cerebral palsy. Clinicians should understand the importance of prompt referral to diagnostic-specific early intervention to optimize infant motor and cognitive plasticity, prevent secondary complications, and enhance caregiver well-being.

Bipolar disorder is a heritable mental illness with complex etiology. We performed a genome-wide association study of 41,917 bipolar disorder cases and 371,549 controls of European ancestry, which identified 64 associated genomic loci. Bipolar disorder risk alleles were enriched in genes in synaptic signaling pathways and brain-expressed genes, particularly those with high specificity of expression in neurons of the prefrontal cortex and hippocampus. Significant signal enrichment was found in genes encoding targets of antipsychotics, calcium channel blockers, antiepileptics and anesthetics. Integrating expression quantitative trait locus data implicated 15 genes robustly linked to bipolar disorder via gene expression, encoding druggable targets such as HTR6, MCHR1, DCLK3 and FURIN. Analyses of bipolar disorder subtypes indicated high but imperfect genetic correlation between bipolar disorder type I and II and identified additional associated loci. Together, these results advance our understanding of the biological etiology of bipolar disorder, identify novel therapeutic leads and prioritize genes for functional follow-up studies.

STUDY QUESTION: What updates of the International Glossary on Infertility and Fertility Care are required, to reflect contemporary scientific knowledge, social needs, and inclusive definitions, while harmonizing international communication across clinical, research, policy, and public domains? SUMMARY ANSWER: This 4th edition presents 348 consensus-based terms and definitions, including numerous revisions from the previous edition and 79 newly introduced definitions reflecting advances in reproductive science, technology, and evolving social contexts. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Previous glossary editions (2006, 2009, 2017) established internationally recognized definitions related to clinical practice, research, and policy. The 2017 edition comprised 283 terms and, among many others, expanded the concept of infertility to include not only its recognition as a disease, but also as an impairment of function generating disability. The glossary has been extensively used worldwide and has contributed to international standardization of data collection, appropriate comparison of outcome measures, and provided a reference for all stakeholders including policy makers. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Under guidance of the organizing committee, 21 professionals from across the world, and representing expertise in different sub-specialties, formed five working groups: clinical definitions; outcome measures; embryology laboratory; clinical and laboratory andrology; and epidemiology, public health and gender related definitions. The definitions from the previous glossary were evaluated and new terms identified. All definitions were then reviewed by an international advisory panel of nine experts that evaluated the glossary from scientific, ethical, cultural, and policy perspectives. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Between November 2024 and October 2025, periodical virtual meetings were held within and between working groups and the organizing committee. Following circulation of the first consensually agreed draft, a one-day in-person meeting with representatives of all working groups and members of the international advisory panel was held at ESHRE, June 2025. Most terms and definitions were discussed and agreed. In the absence of agreement, further discussions were held between the organizing committee, working group chairs and members of the advisory panel. It had been determined at the outset that final disagreement would be resolved via a two-third majority vote. All terms and definitions were, however, reached by consensus and adopted following a final round of review and approval by all authors. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The glossary now includes 348 terms. Compared to the previous edition, 14 terms were deleted, numerous terms modified and 79 new terms were added. Modifications reflect current scientific knowledge, technological advancements, and inclusivity related to gender and family structures. Chance does not play a role, as all definitions are consensus-based. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Some terms may require future refinement as scientific knowledge evolves and societal contexts change. The glossary reflects consensus rather than empirical testing of all definitions. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This glossary provides a global reference for standardized terminology, supporting clinical care, research, international comparisons, policy making, patient communication, and reproductive health literacy. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): Neither ICMART, responsible for conducting this project, nor any of the participants received specific financial support for their activities in this project. Ferring provided ICMART with a fixed amount to cover venue costs and a one-day hotel accommodation for participants attending the in-person meeting held prior to the ESHRE Congress in June 2025. Disclosures were provided by all authors, and none reported any conflict of interest related to this manuscript. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

PURPOSE: The present study compared the effects of aerobic endurance training at different intensities and with different methods matched for total work and frequency. Responses in maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max), stroke volume of the heart (SV), blood volume, lactate threshold (LT), and running economy (CR) were examined. METHODS: Forty healthy, nonsmoking, moderately trained male subjects were randomly assigned to one of four groups:1) long slow distance (70% maximal heart rate; HRmax); 2)lactate threshold (85% HRmax); 3) 15/15 interval running (15 s of running at 90-95% HRmax followed by 15 s of active resting at 70% HRmax); and 4) 4 x 4 min of interval running (4 min of running at 90-95% HRmax followed by 3 min of active resting at 70%HRmax). All four training protocols resulted in similar total oxygen consumption and were performed 3 d.wk for 8 wk. RESULTS: High-intensity aerobic interval training resulted in significantly increased VO2max compared with long slow distance and lactate-threshold training intensities (P<0.01). The percentage increases for the 15/15 and 4 x 4 min groups were 5.5 and 7.2%, respectively, reflecting increases in V O2max from 60.5 to 64.4 mL x kg(-1) x min(-1) and 55.5 to 60.4 mL x kg(-1) x min(-1). SV increased significantly by approximately 10% after interval training (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: : High-aerobic intensity endurance interval training is significantly more effective than performing the same total work at either lactate threshold or at 70% HRmax, in improving VO2max. The changes in VO2max correspond with changes in SV, indicating a close link between the two.

STUDY QUESTION: Can a consensus and evidence-driven set of terms and definitions be generated to be used globally in order to ensure consistency when reporting on infertility issues and fertility care interventions, as well as to harmonize communication among the medical and scientific communities, policy-makers, and lay public including individuals and couples experiencing fertility problems? SUMMARY ANSWER: A set of 283 consensus-based and evidence-driven terminologies used in infertility and fertility care has been generated through an inclusive consensus-based process with multiple stakeholders. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: In 2006 the International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ICMART) published a first glossary of 53 terms and definitions. In 2009 ICMART together with WHO published a revised version expanded to 87 terms, which defined infertility as a disease of the reproductive system, and increased standardization of fertility treatment terminology. Since 2009, limitations were identified in several areas and enhancements were suggested for the glossary, especially concerning male factor, demography, epidemiology and public health issues. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Twenty-five professionals, from all parts of the world and representing their expertise in a variety of sub-specialties, were organized into five working groups: clinical definitions; outcome measurements; embryology laboratory; clinical and laboratory andrology; and epidemiology and public health. Assessment for revisions, as well as expansion on topics not covered by the previous glossary, were undertaken. A larger group of independent experts and representatives from collaborating organizations further discussed and assisted in refining all terms and definitions. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Members of the working groups and glossary co-ordinators interacted through electronic mail and face-to-face in international/regional conferences. Two formal meetings were held in Geneva, Switzerland, with a final consensus meeting including independent experts as well as observers and representatives of international/regional scientific and patient organizations. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: A consensus-based and evidence-driven set of 283 terminologies used in infertility and fertility care was generated to harmonize communication among health professionals and scientists as well as the lay public, patients and policy makers. Definitions such as 'fertility care' and 'fertility awareness' together with terminologies used in embryology and andrology have been introduced in the glossary for the first time. Furthermore, the definition of 'infertility' has been expanded in order to cover a wider spectrum of conditions affecting the capacity of individuals and couples to reproduce. The definition of infertility remains as a disease characterized by the failure to establish a clinical pregnancy; however, it also acknowledges that the failure to become pregnant does not always result from a disease, and therefore introduces the concept of an impairment of function which can lead to a disability. Additionally, subfertility is now redundant, being replaced by the term infertility so as to standardize the definition and avoid confusion. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: All stakeholders agreed to the vast majority of terminologies included in this glossary. In cases where disagreements were not resolved, the final decision was reached after a vote, defined before the meeting as consensus if passed with 75%. Over the following months, an external expert group, which included representatives from non-governmental organizations, reviewed and provided final feedback on the glossary. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Some terminologies have different definitions, depending on the area of medicine, for example demographic or clinical as well as geographic differences. These differences were taken into account and this glossary represents a multinational effort to harmonize terminologies that should be used worldwide. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: None. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

BACKGROUND: New methods have been used, with promising results, to treat full-thickness cartilage defects. The objective of the present study was to compare autologous chondrocyte implantation with microfracture in a randomized trial. We are not aware of any previous randomized studies comparing these methods. METHODS: Eighty patients without general osteoarthritis who had a single symptomatic cartilage defect on the femoral condyle in a stable knee were treated with autologous chondrocyte implantation or microfracture (forty in each group). We used the International Cartilage Repair Society, Lysholm, Short Form-36 (SF-36), and Tegner forms to collect data. An independent observer performed a follow-up examination at twelve and twenty-four months. Two years postoperatively, arthroscopy with biopsy for histological evaluation was carried out. The histological evaluation was done by a pathologist and a clinical scientist, both of whom were blinded to each patient's treatment. RESULTS: In general, there were small differences between the two treatment groups. At two years, both groups had significant clinical improvement. According to the SF-36 physical component score at two years postoperatively, the improvement in the microfracture group was significantly better than that in the autologous chondrocyte implantation group (p = 0.004). Younger and more active patients did better in both groups. There were two failures in the autologous chondrocyte implantation group and one in the microfracture group. No serious complications were reported. Biopsy specimens were obtained from 84% of the patients, and histological evaluation of repair tissues showed no significant differences between the two groups. We did not find any association between the histological quality of the tissue and the clinical outcome according to the scores on the Lysholm or SF-36 form or the visual analog scale. CONCLUSIONS: Both methods had acceptable short-term clinical results. There was no significant difference in macroscopic or histological results between the two treatment groups and no association between the histological findings and the clinical outcome at the two-year time-point. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic study, Level I-1a (randomized controlled trial [significant difference]). See Instructions to Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

BACKGROUND: Individuals with the metabolic syndrome are 3 times more likely to die of heart disease than healthy counterparts. Exercise training reduces several of the symptoms of the syndrome, but the exercise intensity that yields the maximal beneficial adaptations is in dispute. We compared moderate and high exercise intensity with regard to variables associated with cardiovascular function and prognosis in patients with the metabolic syndrome. METHODS AND RESULTS: Thirty-two metabolic syndrome patients (age, 52.3+/-3.7 years; maximal oxygen uptake [o(2)max], 34 mL x kg(-1) x min(-1)) were randomized to equal volumes of either moderate continuous moderate exercise (CME; 70% of highest measured heart rate [Hfmax]) or aerobic interval training (AIT; 90% of Hfmax) 3 times a week for 16 weeks or to a control group. o(2)max increased more after AIT than CME (35% versus 16%; P<0.01) and was associated with removal of more risk factors that constitute the metabolic syndrome (number of factors: AIT, 5.9 before versus 4.0 after; P<0.01; CME, 5.7 before versus 5.0 after; group difference, P<0.05). AIT was superior to CME in enhancing endothelial function (9% versus 5%; P<0.001), insulin signaling in fat and skeletal muscle, skeletal muscle biogenesis, and excitation-contraction coupling and in reducing blood glucose and lipogenesis in adipose tissue. The 2 exercise programs were equally effective at lowering mean arterial blood pressure and reducing body weight (-2.3 and -3.6 kg in AIT and CME, respectively) and fat. CONCLUSIONS: Exercise intensity was an important factor for improving aerobic capacity and reversing the risk factors of the metabolic syndrome. These findings may have important implications for exercise training in rehabilitation programs and future studies.

Abstract The genetic make-up of an individual contributes to the susceptibility and response to viral infection. Although environmental, clinical and social factors have a role in the chance of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 and the severity of COVID-19 1,2 , host genetics may also be important. Identifying host-specific genetic factors may reveal biological mechanisms of therapeutic relevance and clarify causal relationships of modifiable environmental risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection and outcomes. We formed a global network of researchers to investigate the role of human genetics in SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 severity. Here we describe the results of three genome-wide association meta-analyses that consist of up to 49,562 patients with COVID-19 from 46 studies across 19 countries. We report 13 genome-wide significant loci that are associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection or severe manifestations of COVID-19. Several of these loci correspond to previously documented associations to lung or autoimmune and inflammatory diseases 3–7 . They also represent potentially actionable mechanisms in response to infection. Mendelian randomization analyses support a causal role for smoking and body-mass index for severe COVID-19 although not for type II diabetes. The identification of novel host genetic factors associated with COVID-19 was made possible by the community of human genetics researchers coming together to prioritize the sharing of data, results, resources and analytical frameworks. This working model of international collaboration underscores what is possible for future genetic discoveries in emerging pandemics, or indeed for any complex human disease.

Late-onset Alzheimer's disease is a prevalent age-related polygenic disease that accounts for 50-70% of dementia cases. Currently, only a fraction of the genetic variants underlying Alzheimer's disease have been identified. Here we show that increased sample sizes allowed identification of seven previously unidentified genetic loci contributing to Alzheimer's disease. This study highlights microglia, immune cells and protein catabolism as relevant to late-onset Alzheimer's disease, while identifying and prioritizing previously unidentified genes of potential interest. We anticipate that these results can be included in larger meta-analyses of Alzheimer's disease to identify further genetic variants that contribute to Alzheimer's pathology.

BACKGROUND: Targeted temperature management is recommended for patients after cardiac arrest, but the supporting evidence is of low certainty. METHODS: In an open-label trial with blinded assessment of outcomes, we randomly assigned 1900 adults with coma who had had an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest of presumed cardiac or unknown cause to undergo targeted hypothermia at 33°C, followed by controlled rewarming, or targeted normothermia with early treatment of fever (body temperature, ≥37.8°C). The primary outcome was death from any cause at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included functional outcome at 6 months as assessed with the modified Rankin scale. Prespecified subgroups were defined according to sex, age, initial cardiac rhythm, time to return of spontaneous circulation, and presence or absence of shock on admission. Prespecified adverse events were pneumonia, sepsis, bleeding, arrhythmia resulting in hemodynamic compromise, and skin complications related to the temperature management device. RESULTS: A total of 1850 patients were evaluated for the primary outcome. At 6 months, 465 of 925 patients (50%) in the hypothermia group had died, as compared with 446 of 925 (48%) in the normothermia group (relative risk with hypothermia, 1.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.94 to 1.14; P = 0.37). Of the 1747 patients in whom the functional outcome was assessed, 488 of 881 (55%) in the hypothermia group had moderately severe disability or worse (modified Rankin scale score ≥4), as compared with 479 of 866 (55%) in the normothermia group (relative risk with hypothermia, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.09). Outcomes were consistent in the prespecified subgroups. Arrhythmia resulting in hemodynamic compromise was more common in the hypothermia group than in the normothermia group (24% vs. 17%, P<0.001). The incidence of other adverse events did not differ significantly between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with coma after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, targeted hypothermia did not lead to a lower incidence of death by 6 months than targeted normothermia. (Funded by the Swedish Research Council and others; TTM2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02908308.).

Abstract Common single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) are predicted to collectively explain 40–50% of phenotypic variation in human height, but identifying the specific variants and associated regions requires huge sample sizes 1 . Here, using data from a genome-wide association study of 5.4 million individuals of diverse ancestries, we show that 12,111 independent SNPs that are significantly associated with height account for nearly all of the common SNP-based heritability. These SNPs are clustered within 7,209 non-overlapping genomic segments with a mean size of around 90 kb, covering about 21% of the genome. The density of independent associations varies across the genome and the regions of increased density are enriched for biologically relevant genes. In out-of-sample estimation and prediction, the 12,111 SNPs (or all SNPs in the HapMap 3 panel 2 ) account for 40% (45%) of phenotypic variance in populations of European ancestry but only around 10–20% (14–24%) in populations of other ancestries. Effect sizes, associated regions and gene prioritization are similar across ancestries, indicating that reduced prediction accuracy is likely to be explained by linkage disequilibrium and differences in allele frequency within associated regions. Finally, we show that the relevant biological pathways are detectable with smaller sample sizes than are needed to implicate causal genes and variants. Overall, this study provides a comprehensive map of specific genomic regions that contain the vast majority of common height-associated variants. Although this map is saturated for populations of European ancestry, further research is needed to achieve equivalent saturation in other ancestries.

INTRODUCTION The cerebral cortex underlies our complex cognitive capabilities. Variations in human cortical surface area and thickness are associated with neurological, psychological, and behavioral traits and can be measured in vivo by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Studies in model organisms have identified genes that influence cortical structure, but little is known about common genetic variants that affect human cortical structure. RATIONALE To identify genetic variants associated with human cortical structure at both global and regional levels, we conducted a genome-wide association meta-analysis of brain MRI data from 51,665 individuals across 60 cohorts. We analyzed the surface area and average thickness of the whole cortex and 34 cortical regions with known functional specializations. RESULTS We identified 369 nominally genome-wide significant loci ( P &lt; 5 × 10 −8 ) associated with cortical structure in a discovery sample of 33,992 participants of European ancestry. Of the 360 loci for which replication data were available, 241 loci influencing surface area and 66 influencing thickness remained significant after replication, with 237 loci passing multiple testing correction ( P &lt; 8.3 × 10 −10 ; 187 influencing surface area and 50 influencing thickness). Common genetic variants explained 34% (SE = 3%) of the variation in total surface area and 26% (SE = 2%) in average thickness; surface area and thickness showed a negative genetic correlation ( r G = −0.32, SE = 0.05, P = 6.5 × 10 −12 ), which suggests that genetic influences have opposing effects on surface area and thickness. Bioinformatic analyses showed that total surface area is influenced by genetic variants that alter gene regulatory activity in neural progenitor cells during fetal development. By contrast, average thickness is influenced by active regulatory elements in adult brain samples, which may reflect processes that occur after mid-fetal development, such as myelination, branching, or pruning. When considered together, these results support the radial unit hypothesis that different developmental mechanisms promote surface area expansion and increases in thickness. To identify specific genetic influences on individual cortical regions, we controlled for global measures (total surface area or average thickness) in the regional analyses. After multiple testing correction, we identified 175 loci that influence regional surface area and 46 that influence regional thickness. Loci that affect regional surface area cluster near genes involved in the Wnt signaling pathway, which is known to influence areal identity. We observed significant positive genetic correlations and evidence of bidirectional causation of total surface area with both general cognitive functioning and educational attainment. We found additional positive genetic correlations between total surface area and Parkinson’s disease but did not find evidence of causation. Negative genetic correlations were evident between total surface area and insomnia, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, depressive symptoms, major depressive disorder, and neuroticism. CONCLUSION This large-scale collaborative work enhances our understanding of the genetic architecture of the human cerebral cortex and its regional patterning. The highly polygenic architecture of the cortex suggests that distinct genes are involved in the development of specific cortical areas. Moreover, we find evidence that brain structure is a key phenotype along the causal pathway that leads from genetic variation to differences in general cognitive function. Identifying genetic influences on human cortical structure. ( A ) Measurement of cortical surface area and thickness from MRI. ( B ) Genomic locations of common genetic variants that influence global and regional cortical structure. ( C ) Our results support the radial unit hypothesis that the expansion of cortical surface area is driven by proliferating neural progenitor cells. ( D ) Cortical surface area shows genetic correlation with psychiatric and cognitive traits. Error bars indicate SE. IMAGE CREDITS: (A) K. COURTNEY; (C) M. R. GLASS

BACKGROUND: According to the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study, headache disorders are among the most prevalent and disabling conditions worldwide. GBD builds on epidemiological studies (published and unpublished) which are notable for wide variations in both their methodologies and their prevalence estimates. Our first aim was to update the documentation of headache epidemiological studies, summarizing global prevalence estimates for all headache, migraine, tension-type headache (TTH) and headache on ≥15 days/month (H15+), comparing these with GBD estimates and exploring time trends and geographical variations. Our second aim was to analyse how methodological factors influenced prevalence estimates. METHODS: In a narrative review, all prevalence studies published until 2020, excluding those of clinic populations, were identified through a literature search. Prevalence data were extracted, along with those related to methodology, world region and publication year. Bivariate analyses (correlations or comparisons of means) and multiple linear regression (MLR) analyses were performed. RESULTS: From 357 publications, the vast majority from high-income countries, the estimated global prevalence of active headache disorder was 52.0% (95%CI 48.9-55.4), of migraine 14.0% (12.9-15.2), of TTH 26.0% (22.7-29.5) and of H15+ 4.6% (3.9-5.5). These estimates were comparable with those of migraine and TTH in GBD2019, the most recent iteration, but higher for headache overall. Each day, 15.8% of the world's population had headache. MLR analyses explained less than 30% of the variation. Methodological factors contributing to variation, were publication year, sample size, inclusion of probable diagnoses, sub-population sampling (e.g., of health-care personnel), sampling method (random or not), screening question (neutral, or qualified in severity or presumed cause) and scope of enquiry (headache disorders only or multiple other conditions). With these taken into account, migraine prevalence estimates increased over the years, while estimates for all headache types varied between world regions. CONCLUSION: The review confirms GBD in finding that headache disorders remain highly prevalent worldwide, and it identifies methodological factors explaining some of the large variation between study findings. These variations render uncertain both the increase in migraine prevalence estimates over time, and the geographical differences. More and better studies are needed in low- and middle-income countries.