Bone turnover markers for early detection of fracture healing disturbances: A review of the scientific literature

Imaging techniques are the standard method for assessment of fracture healing processes. However, these methods are perhaps not entirely reliable for early detection of complications, the most frequent of these being delayed union and non-union. A prompt diagnosis of such disorders could prevent prolonged patient distress and disability. Efforts should be directed towards the development of new technologies for improving accuracy in diagnosing complications following bone fractures. The variation in the levels of bone turnover markers (BTMs) have been assessed with regard to there ability to predict impaired fracture healing at an early stage, nevertheless the conclusions of some studies are not consensual. In this article the authors have revised the potential of BTMs as early predictors of prognosis in adult patients presenting traumatic bone fractures but who did not suffer from osteopenia or postmenopausal osteoporosis. The available information from the different studies performed in this field was systematized in order to highlight the most promising BTMs for the assessment of fracture healing outcome.

Biological markers in noninvasive brain stimulation trials in major depressive disorder: a systematic review

Objectives: The therapeutic effects of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation in patients with major depression have shown promising results; however, there is a lack of mechanistic studies using biological markers (BMs) as an outcome. Therefore, our aim was to review noninvasive brain stimulation trials in depression using BMs. Methods: The following databases were used for our systematic review: MEDLINE, Web of Science, Cochrane, and SCIELO. We examined articles published before November 2012 that used TMS and transcranial direct current stimulation as an intervention for depression and had BM as an outcome measure. The search was limited to human studies written in English. Results: Of 1234 potential articles, 52 articles were included. Only studies using TMS were found. Biological markers included immune and endocrine serum markers, neuroimaging techniques, and electrophysiological outcomes. In 12 articles (21.4%), end point BM measurements were not significantly associated with clinical outcomes. All studies reached significant results in the main clinical rating scales. Biological marker outcomes were used as predictors of response, to understand mechanisms of TMS, and as a surrogate of safety. Conclusions: Functional magnetic resonance imaging, single-photon emission computed tomography, positron emission tomography, magnetic resonance spectroscopy, cortical excitability, and brain-derived neurotrophic factor consistently showed positive results. Brain-derived neurotrophic factor was the best predictor of patients’ likeliness to respond. These initial results are promising; however, all studies investigating BMs are small, used heterogeneous samples, and did not take into account confounders such as age, sex, or family history. Based on our findings, we recommend further studies to validate BMs in noninvasive brain stimulation trials in MDD.