Using transcranial direct-current stimulation (tDCS) to understand cognitive processing

Noninvasive brain stimulation methods are becoming increasingly common tools in the kit of the cognitive scientist. In particular, transcranial direct-current stimulation (tDCS) is showing great promise as a tool to causally manipulate the brain and understand how information is processed. The popularity of this method of brain stimulation is based on the fact that it is safe, inexpensive, its effects are long lasting, and you can increase the likelihood that neurons will fire near one electrode and decrease the likelihood that neurons will fire near another. However, this method of manipulating the brain to draw causal inferences is not without complication. Because tDCS methods continue to be refined and are not yet standardized, there are reports in the literature that show some striking inconsistencies. Primary among the complications of the technique is that the tDCS method uses two or more electrodes to pass current and all of these electrodes will have effects on the tissue underneath them. In this tutorial, we will share what we have learned about using tDCS to manipulate how the brain perceives, attends, remembers, and responds to information from our environment. Our goal is to provide a starting point for new users of tDCS and spur discussion of the standardization of methods to enhance replicability.The authors declare that they had no conflicts of interest with respect to their authorship or the publication of this article. This work was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health (R01-EY019882, R01-EY025272, P30-EY08126, F31-MH102042, and T32-EY007135). (R01-EY019882 - National Institutes of Health; R01-EY025272 - National Institutes of Health; P30-EY08126 - National Institutes of Health; F31-MH102042 - National Institutes of Health; T32-EY007135 - National Institutes of Health)Accepted manuscrip

Biomechanical Computed Tomography analysis (BCT) for clinical assessment of osteoporosis.

The surgeon general of the USA defines osteoporosis as "a skeletal disorder characterized by compromised bone strength, predisposing to an increased risk of fracture." Measuring bone strength, Biomechanical Computed Tomography analysis (BCT), namely, finite element analysis of a patient's clinical-resolution computed tomography (CT) scan, is now available in the USA as a Medicare screening benefit for osteoporosis diagnostic testing. Helping to address under-diagnosis of osteoporosis, BCT can be applied "opportunistically" to most existing CT scans that include the spine or hip regions and were previously obtained for an unrelated medical indication. For the BCT test, no modifications are required to standard clinical CT imaging protocols. The analysis provides measurements of bone strength as well as a dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA)-equivalent bone mineral density (BMD) T-score at the hip and a volumetric BMD of trabecular bone at the spine. Based on both the bone strength and BMD measurements, a physician can identify osteoporosis and assess fracture risk (high, increased, not increased), without needing confirmation by DXA. To help introduce BCT to clinicians and health care professionals, we describe in this review the currently available clinical implementation of the test (VirtuOst), its application for managing patients, and the underlying supporting evidence; we also discuss its main limitations and how its results can be interpreted clinically. Together, this body of evidence supports BCT as an accurate and convenient diagnostic test for osteoporosis in both sexes, particularly when used opportunistically for patients already with CT. Biomechanical Computed Tomography analysis (BCT) uses a patient's CT scan to measure both bone strength and bone mineral density at the hip or spine. Performing at least as well as DXA for both diagnosing osteoporosis and assessing fracture risk, BCT is particularly well-suited to "opportunistic" use for the patient without a recent DXA who is undergoing or has previously undergone CT testing (including hip or spine regions) for an unrelated medical condition

Comparison of BMD changes and bone formation marker levels 3 years after bisphosphonate discontinuation: FLEX and HORIZON-PFT Extension I trials

An ASBMR task force recommends a drug holiday for certain women treated for ≥5 years with oral alendronate or ≥3 years with intravenous zoledronic acid, with reassessment 2-3 years later. It is not known whether changes in BMD or bone turnover markers differ after oral or intravenous therapy. Our goal was to compare changes in BMD and procollagen type I N propeptide, PINP, after oral or intravenous bisphosphonate use. In the Fracture Intervention Trial Long-term Extension (FLEX), women who received a mean 5 years of alendronate were randomized to placebo or continued treatment. In the Health Outcomes and Reduced Incidence with Zoledronic acid Once Yearly-Pivotal Fracture Trial Extension I (HORIZON-PFT E1), women who received 3 years of zoledronic acid were randomized to placebo or continued treatment. We examined the proportion of participants with BMD loss or PINP gain ≥least significant change (LSC), and those whose values exceeded a threshold (T score ≤-2.5 or PINP ≥36.0 ng/mL, a premenopausal median value). After 3 years of placebo, the FLEX group had greater mean total hip BMD decreases (-2.3% versus -1.2% in the HORIZON-PFT E1 group, p < 0.01), and greater rises in PINP (+11.6 ng/mL versus +6.7 ng/mL, p < 0.01). There was a greater proportion of individuals in FLEX with total hip BMD loss and PINP increases that exceeded LSC, and PINP values ≥36.0 ng/mL. In contrast, there were small changes in the proportion of women with femoral neck T scores ≤-2.5 in both groups. In conclusion, 3 years after bisphosphonate discontinuation, a considerable proportion of former alendronate and zoledronic acid users had meaningful declines in total hip BMD and elevations in PINP. Despite a longer treatment course, alendronate may have a more rapid offset of drug effect than zoledronic acid

Computational Characterization and Prediction of Estrogen Receptor Coactivator Binding Site Inhibitors

Many carcinogens have been shown to cause tissue specific tumors in animal models. The mechanism for this specificity has not been fully elucidated and is usually attributed to differences in organ metabolism. For heterocyclic amines, potent carcinogens that are formed in well-done meat, the ability to either bind to the estrogen receptor and activate or inhibit an estrogenic response will have a major impact on carcinogenicity. Here we describe our work with the human estrogen receptor alpha (hERa) and the mutagenic/carcinogenic heterocyclic amines PhIP, MeIQx, IFP, and the hydroxylated metabolite of PhIP, N2-hydroxy-PhIP. We found that PhIP, in contrast to the other heterocyclic amines, increased cell-proliferation in MCF-7 human breast cancer cells and activated the hERa receptor. We show mechanistic data supporting this activation both computationally by homology modeling and docking, and by NMR confirmation that PhIP binds with the ligand binding domain (LBD). This binding competes with estradiol (E2) in the native E2 binding cavity of the receptor. We also find that other heterocyclic amines and N2-hydroxy-PhIP inhibit ER activation presumably by binding into another cavity on the LBD. Moreover, molecular dynamics simulations of inhibitory heterocyclic amines reveal a disruption of the surface of the receptor protein involved with protein-protein signaling. We therefore propose that the mechanism for the tissue specific carcinogenicity seen in the rat breast tumors and the presumptive human breast cancer associated with the consumption of well-done meat maybe mediated by this receptor activation

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