Do trauma cue exposure and/or PTSD symptom severity intensify selective approach bias toward cannabis cues in regular cannabis users with trauma histories?

Trauma cue-elicited activation of automatic cannabis-related cognitive biases are theorized to contribute to comorbid posttraumatic stress disorder and cannabis use disorder. This phenomenon can be studied experimentally by combining the trauma cue reactivity paradigm (CRP) with cannabis-related cognitive processing tasks. In this study, we used a computerized cannabis approach-avoidance task (AAT) to assess automatic cannabis (vs. neutral) approach bias following personalized trauma (vs. neutral) CRP exposure. We hypothesized that selective cannabis (vs. neutral) approach biases on the AAT would be larger among participants with higher PTSD symptom severity, particularly following trauma (vs. neutral) cue exposure. We used a within-subjects experimental design with a continuous between-subjects moderator (PTSD symptom severity). Participants were exposed to both a trauma and neutral CRP in random order, completing a cannabis AAT (cannabis vs. neutral stimuli) following each cue exposure. Current cannabis users with histories of psychological trauma (n = 50; 34% male; mean age = 37.8 years) described their most traumatic lifetime event, and a similarly-detailed neutral event, according to an established interview protocol that served as the CRP. As hypothesized, an AAT stimulus type x PTSD symptom severity interaction emerged (p = .042) with approach bias greater to cannabis than neutral stimuli for participants with higher (p = .006), but not lower (p = .36), PTSD symptom severity. Contrasting expectations, the stimulus type x PTSD symptoms effect was not intensified by trauma cue exposure (p = .19). Selective cannabis approach bias may be chronically activated in cannabis users with higher PTSD symptom severity and may serve as an automatic cognitive mechanism to help explain PTSD-CUD co-morbidity.</p

Early changes in biochemical markers of bone turnover and their relationship with bone mineral density changes after 24 months of treatment with teriparatide

Summary We report the changes in biochemical markers of bone formation during the first 6 months of teriparatide therapy in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis according to previous antiresorptive treatment. Prior therapy does not adversely affect the response to teriparatide treatment. Similar bone markers levels are reached after 6 months of treatment. Introduction The response of biochemical markers of bone turnover with teriparatide therapy in subjects who have previously received osteoporosis drugs is not fully elucidated. We examined biochemical markers of bone formation in women with osteoporosis treated with teriparatide and determined: (1) whether the response is associated with prior osteoporosis therapy, (2) which marker shows the best performance for detecting a response to therapy, and (3) the correlations between early changes in bone markers and subsequent bone mineral density (BMD) changes after 24 months of teriparatide. Methods We conducted a prospective, open-label, 24-month study at 95 centers in 10 countries in 758 postmenopausal women with established osteoporosis (n = 181 treatment-naïve) who had at least one post-baseline bone marker determination. Teriparatide (20 μg/day) was administered for up to 24 months. We measured procollagen type I N-terminal propeptide (PINP), bone-specific alkaline phosphatase (b-ALP), and total alkaline phosphatase (t-ALP) at baseline, 1 and 6 months, and change in BMD at the lumbar spine, total hip and femoral neck from baseline to 24 months. Results Significant increases in formation markers occurred after 1 month of teriparatide regardless of prior osteoporosis therapy. The absolute increase at 1 month was lower in previously treated versus treatment-naïve patients, but after 6 months all groups reached similar levels. PINP showed the best signal-to-noise ratio. Baseline PINP correlated positively and significantly with BMD response at 24 months. Conclusions This study suggests that the long-term responsiveness of bone formation markers to teriparatide is not affected in subjects previously treated with antiresorptive drugs

Current and emerging treatment of osteoporosis

The goal of treating a patient with recent fragility fracture should not only be to treat the patient in the acute phase but also to prevent further fractures. Interventions to increase bone mass to preventing further fragility fractures can be classified as non-pharmacological and pharmacological. All European and international guidelines base the need for treatment, not on the diagnosis of osteoporosis (based on the T-score), but on the risk of fracture, which is strongly influenced by the presence of a fragility fracture, especially vertebral or femoral fractures. Before treatment, it is important to make a differential diagnosis between primary and secondary osteoporosis because anti-osteoporotic drug treatment would be useless if the primary illness causing osteoporosis is not treated too. Some studies show that anti-osteoporotic drugs are frequently interrupted within 1 month of their prescription; this happens not so much due to the occurrence of adverse events but mostly because patients have not been sufficiently informed about the importance of taking the drug and because are not receiving personalised treatment. All data confirm that, in older people, vitamin D deficiency is highly prevalent and calcium intake is often not adequate. So, osteoporosis guidelines recommend calcium and vitamin D for all patients in association with antiosteoporotic therapy. We have many drugs for the treatment of patients at high risk of fracture, but we should use drugs based on evidence of their efficacy and safety in older-age subgroups, provided by targeted studies or extrapolated data. In this chapter, we describe efficacy, route of administration, adverse events and recent technical remarks of current antiresorptive and anabolic osteoporosis therapies. Furthermore, we describe emerging therapies, such as Abaloparatide and Romosozumab

Suicide prevention for youth - a mental health awareness program: lessons learned from the Saving and Empowering Young Lives in Europe (SEYLE) intervention study.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: The Awareness program was designed as a part of the EU-funded Saving and Empowering Young Lives in Europe (SEYLE) intervention study to promote mental health of adolescents in 11 European countries by helping them to develop problem-solving skills and encouraging them to self-recognize the need for help as well as how to help peers in need. METHODS: For this descriptive study all coordinators of the SEYLE Awareness program answered an open-ended evaluation questionnaire at the end of the project implementation. Their answers were synthesized and analyzed and are presented here. RESULTS: The results show that the program cultivated peer understanding and support. Adolescents not only learned about mental health by participating in the Awareness program, but the majority of them also greatly enjoyed the experience. CONCLUSIONS: Recommendations for enhancing the successes of mental health awareness programs are presented. Help and cooperation from schools, teachers, local politicians and other stakeholders will lead to more efficacious future programs

TL1A Selectively Enhances IL-12/IL-18-Induced NK Cell Cytotoxicity against NK-Resistant Tumor Targets

# The Author(s) 2010. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com Introduction TL1A (TNFSF15) augments IFN-γ production by IL-12/IL-18 responsive human T cells. Its ligand, death domain receptor 3 (DR3), is induced by activation on T and NK cells. Although IL-12/IL-18 induces DR3 expression on most NK cells, addition of TL1A minimally increases IFN-

Human Cytomegalovirus UL18 Utilizes US6 for Evading the NK and T-Cell Responses

Human cytomegalovirus (HCMV) US6 glycoprotein inhibits TAP function, resulting in down-regulation of MHC class I molecules at the cell surface. Cells lacking MHC class I molecules are susceptible to NK cell lysis. HCMV expresses UL18, a MHC class I homolog that functions as a surrogate to prevent host cell lysis. Despite a high level of sequence and structural homology between UL18 and MHC class I molecules, surface expression of MHC class I, but not UL18, is down regulated by US6. Here, we describe a mechanism of action by which HCMV UL18 avoids attack by the self-derived TAP inhibitor US6. UL18 abrogates US6 inhibition of ATP binding by TAP and, thereby, restores TAP-mediated peptide translocation. In addition, UL18 together with US6 interferes with the physical association between MHC class I molecules and TAP that is required for optimal peptide loading. Thus, regardless of the recovery of TAP function, surface expression of MHC class I molecules remains decreased. UL18 represents a unique immune evasion protein that has evolved to evade both the NK and the T cell immune responses

Pulsed radiofrequency treatment in interventional pain management: mechanisms and potential indications—a review

Item does not contain fulltextBACKGROUND: The objective of this review is to evaluate the efficacy of Pulsed Radiofrequency (PRF) treatment in chronic pain management in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and well-designed observational studies. The physics, mechanisms of action, and biological effects are discussed to provide the scientific basis for this promising modality. METHODS: We systematically searched for clinical studies on PRF. We searched the MEDLINE (PubMed) and EMBASE database, using the free text terms: pulsed radiofrequency, radio frequency, radiation, isothermal radiofrequency, and combination of these. We classified the information in two tables, one focusing only on RCTs, and another, containing prospective studies. Date of last electronic search was 30 May 2010. The methodological quality of the presented reports was scored using the original criteria proposed by Jadad et al. FINDINGS: We found six RCTs that evaluated the efficacy of PRF, one against corticosteroid injection, one against sham intervention, and the rest against conventional RF thermocoagulation. Two trials were conducted in patients with lower back pain due to lumbar zygapophyseal joint pain, one in cervical radicular pain, one in lumbosacral radicular pain, one in trigeminal neuralgia, and another in chronic shoulder pain. CONCLUSION: From the available evidence, the use of PRF to the dorsal root ganglion in cervical radicular pain is compelling. With regards to its lumbosacral counterpart, the use of PRF cannot be similarly advocated in view of the methodological quality of the included study. PRF application to the supracapular nerve was found to be as efficacious as intra-articular corticosteroid in patients with chronic shoulder pain. The use of PRF in lumbar facet arthropathy and trigeminal neuralgia was found to be less effective than conventional RF thermocoagulation techniques