Pre-frontal stimulation does not reliably increase reward responsiveness

Depression is the leading cause of disability worldwide and its effects can be fatal, with over 800,000 people dying by suicide each year. Neuromodulatory treatments such as transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) are being used to treat depression. Despite its endorsement by two regulatory bodies: NICE (2016) and the FDA (2008), there are major questions about the treatment efficacy and biological mechanisms of TMS. Ahn et al.'s (2013) justified the use of TMS in a clinical context in an important study indicating that excitatory TMS increases reward responsiveness. A pseudo-replication of this study by Duprat et al., (2016) also found a similar effect of active TMS, but only with the addition of an exploratory covariate to the analyses-trait reward responsiveness. Here we replicate Ahn et al.'s (2013) key study, and to test the reliability of the effects, and their dependency on trait reward responsiveness as described by Duprat et al., (2016). Using excitatory and sham TMS, we tested volunteers using the probabilistic learning task to measure their reward responsiveness both before and after stimulation. We also examined affect (positive, negative) following stimulation. Irrespective of TMS, the task was shown to be sensitive to reward responsiveness. However, we did not show TMS to be effective in increasing reward responsiveness and we did not replicate Ahn et al., (2013) or Duprat et al., (2016)'s key findings for TMS efficacy, where we provide evidence favouring the null. Moreover, exploratory analyses suggested following active stimulation, positive affect was reduced. Given our findings, we question the basic effects, which support the use of TMS for depression, particularly considering potential deleterious effects of reduced positive affect in patients with depression.

Vitamin D in renal transplantation - from biological mechanisms to clinical benefits

Recent developments in our understanding of vitamin D show that it plays a significant role in immunological health, uniquely occupying both an anti-microbial and immunoregulatory niche. Vitamin D deficiency is widespread amongst renal transplant recipients (RTRs), thus providing one patho-mechanism that may influence the achievement of a successful degree of immunosuppression. It may also influence the development of the infectious, cardiovascular and neoplastic complications seen in RTRs. This review examines the biological roles of vitamin D in the immune system of relevance to renal transplantation (RTx) and evaluates whether vitamin D repletion may be relevant in determining immunologically-related clinical outcomes in RTRs, (including graft survival, cardiovascular disease and cancer). While there are plausible biological and epidemiological reasons to undertake vitamin D repletion in RTRs, there are few randomized-controlled trials in this area. Based on the available literature, we cannot at present categorically make the case for routine measurement and repletion of vitamin D in clinical practice but we do suggest that this is an area in urgent need of further randomized controlled level evidence.