In vivo assessment of use-dependent brain plasticity--beyond the "one trick pony" imaging strategy.

This article has been written as a comment to Dr Thomas and Dr Baker's article "Teaching an adult brain new tricks: A critical review of evidence for training-dependent structural plasticity in humans". We deliberately expand on the key question about the biological substrates underlying use-dependent brain plasticity rather than reiterating the authors' main points of criticism already addressed in more general way by previous publications in the field. The focus here is on the following main issues: i) controversial brain plasticity findings in voxel-based morphometry studies are partially due to the strong dependency of the widely used T1-weighted imaging protocol on varying magnetic resonance contrast contributions; ii) novel concepts in statistical analysis allow one to directly infer topological specificity of structural brain changes associated with plasticity. We conclude that iii) voxel-based quantification of relaxometry derived parameter maps could provide a new perspective on use-dependent plasticity by characterisation of brain tissue property changes beyond the estimation of volume and cortical thickness changes. In the relevant sections we respond to the concerns raised by Dr Thomas and Dr Baker from the perspective of the proposed data acquisition and analysis strategy.

Predictors of the Indefinite Duration Anticoagulation Treatment Strategy In Patients with Cancer Associated Thrombosis

Background: In patients with cancer and acute venous thromboembolism (VTE), current consensus guidelines recommend anticoagulation therapy for an indefinite duration or until the cancer is resolved.Methods and results: Among 1'247 patients with acute VTE enrolled in the Swiss Venous Thromboembolism Registry (SWIVTER) from 18 hospitals, 315 (25%) had cancer of whom 179 (57%) had metastatic disease, 159 (50%) ongoing or recent chemotherapy, and 83 (26%) tumor surgery within 6 months. Patients with cancer were older (66±14 vs. 60±19 years, p<0.001), more often hospitalized at the time of VTE diagnosis (46% vs. 36%, p=0.001), immobile for >3 days (25% vs. 16%, p<0.001), and more often had thrombocytopenia (6% vs. 1%, p<0.001) than patients without cancer. The 30-day rate of VTE-related death or recurrent VTE was 9% in cancer patients vs. 4% in patients without cancer (p<0.001), and the rates of bleeding requiring medical attention were 5% in both groups (p=0.57). Cancer patients received indefinite-duration anticoagulation treatment more often than patients without cancer (47% vs. 19%, p<0.001), and LMWH mono-therapy during the initial 3 months was prescribed to 45% vs. 8%, p<0.001, respectively. Among patients with cancer, prior VTE (OR 4.0, 95%CI 2.0-8.0), metastatic disease (OR 3.0, 95%CI 1.7-5.2), outpatient status at the time of VTE diagnosis (OR 3.8, 95%CI 1.9-7.6), and inpatient treatment (OR 4.4, 95%CI 2.1-9.2) were independently associated with the prescription of indefinite-duration anticoagulation treatment.Conclusions: Less than half of the cancer patients with acute VTE received a prescription for indefinite-duration anticoagulation treatment. Recurrent VTE, metastatic cancer, outpatient VTE diagnosis, and VTE requiring hospitalization were associated with an increased use of this strategy.

Immunogenicity and safety of an intradermal boosting strategy for vaccination against influenza in lung transplant recipients.

The immunogenicity of influenza vaccine is suboptimal in lung transplant recipients. Use of a booster dose and vaccine delivery by the intradermal rather than intramuscular route may improve response. We prospectively evaluated the immunogenicity and safety of a 2-dose boosting strategy of influenza vaccine. Sixty lung transplant recipients received a standard intramuscular injection of the 2006-2007 inactivated influenza vaccine, followed 4 weeks later by an intradermal booster of the same vaccine. Immunogenicity was assessed by measurement of geometric mean titer of antibodies after both the intramuscular injection and the intradermal booster. Vaccine response was defined as 4-fold or higher increase of antibody titers to at least one vaccine antigen. Thirty-eight out of 60 patients (63%) had a response after intramuscular vaccination. Geometric mean titers increased for all three vaccine antigens following the first dose (p &lt; 0.001). However, no significant increases in titer were observed after the booster dose for all three antigens. Among nonresponders, 3/22 (13.6%) additional patients responded after the intradermal booster (p = 0.14). The use of basiliximab was associated with a positive response (p = 0.024). After a single standard dose of influenza vaccine, a booster dose given by intradermal injection did not significantly improve vaccine immunogenicity in lung transplant recipients.