Gabriel S Dichter1, Devin Gibbs2, Moria J Smoski3. 1. Department of Psychiatry, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA. Electronic address: dichter@med.unc.edu. 2. Department of Psychiatry, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA. 3. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) is a promising predictor of treatment response in major depressive disorder (MDD). METHODS: A search for papers published in English was conducted using PubMed with the following words: depression, treatment, resting-state, connectivity, and fMRI. Findings from 21 studies of relations between resting-state fMRI and treatment response in MDD are presented, and common findings and themes are discussed. RESULTS: The use of resting-state fMRI in research on MDD treatment response has yielded a number of consistent findings that provide a basis for understanding the potential mechanisms of action of antidepressant treatment response. These included (1) associations between response to antidepressant medications and increased functional connectivity between frontal and limbic brain regions, possibly resulting in greater inhibitory control over neural circuits that process emotions; (2) connectivity of visual recognition circuits in studies that compared treatment resistant and treatment sensitive patients; (3) response to TMS was consistently predicted by subcallosal cortex connectivity; and (4) hyperconnectivity of the default mode network and hypoconnectivity of the cognitive control network differentiated treatment-resistant from treatment-sensitive MDD patients. LIMITATIONS: There was also considerable variability between studies with respect to study designs and analytic strategies that made direct comparisons across all studies difficult. CONCLUSIONS: Continued standardization of study designs and analytic strategies as well as aggregation of larger datasets will allow the field to better elucidate the potential mechanisms of action of treatment response in patients with MDD to ultimately generate algorithms to predict which patients will respond to which antidepressant treatments.
BACKGROUND: Resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) is a promising predictor of treatment response in major depressive disorder (MDD). METHODS: A search for papers published in English was conducted using PubMed with the following words: depression, treatment, resting-state, connectivity, and fMRI. Findings from 21 studies of relations between resting-state fMRI and treatment response in MDD are presented, and common findings and themes are discussed. RESULTS: The use of resting-state fMRI in research on MDD treatment response has yielded a number of consistent findings that provide a basis for understanding the potential mechanisms of action of antidepressant treatment response. These included (1) associations between response to antidepressant medications and increased functional connectivity between frontal and limbic brain regions, possibly resulting in greater inhibitory control over neural circuits that process emotions; (2) connectivity of visual recognition circuits in studies that compared treatment resistant and treatment sensitive patients; (3) response to TMS was consistently predicted by subcallosal cortex connectivity; and (4) hyperconnectivity of the default mode network and hypoconnectivity of the cognitive control network differentiated treatment-resistant from treatment-sensitive MDDpatients. LIMITATIONS: There was also considerable variability between studies with respect to study designs and analytic strategies that made direct comparisons across all studies difficult. CONCLUSIONS: Continued standardization of study designs and analytic strategies as well as aggregation of larger datasets will allow the field to better elucidate the potential mechanisms of action of treatment response in patients with MDD to ultimately generate algorithms to predict which patients will respond to which antidepressant treatments.
Authors: Jay C Fournier; Robert J DeRubeis; Steven D Hollon; Sona Dimidjian; Jay D Amsterdam; Richard C Shelton; Jan Fawcett Journal: JAMA Date: 2010-01-06 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Ronald C Kessler; Patricia Berglund; Olga Demler; Robert Jin; Doreen Koretz; Kathleen R Merikangas; A John Rush; Ellen E Walters; Philip S Wang Journal: JAMA Date: 2003-06-18 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Conor Liston; Ashley C Chen; Benjamin D Zebley; Andrew T Drysdale; Rebecca Gordon; Bruce Leuchter; Henning U Voss; B J Casey; Amit Etkin; Marc J Dubin Journal: Biol Psychiatry Date: 2014-02-05 Impact factor: 13.382
Authors: Amy T Peters; Lisanne M Jenkins; Jonathan P Stange; Katie L Bessette; Kristy A Skerrett; Leah R Kling; Robert C Welsh; Mohammed R Milad; Kinh L Phan; Scott A Langenecker Journal: Psychoneuroendocrinology Date: 2019-03-12 Impact factor: 4.905
Authors: Lindsay W Victoria; George S Alexopoulos; Irena Ilieva; Aliza T Stein; Matthew J Hoptman; Naib Chowdhury; Matteo Respino; Sarah Shizuko Morimoto; Dora Kanellopoulos; Jimmy N Avari; Faith M Gunning Journal: J Affect Disord Date: 2018-09-11 Impact factor: 4.839