| Literature DB >> 26042054 |
Jamie D Feusner1, Teena Moody1, Tsz Man Lai1, Courtney Sheen1, Sahib Khalsa2, Jesse Brown3, Jennifer Levitt1, Jeffry Alger4, Joseph O'Neill1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Intensive cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) can effectively reduce symptoms in obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). However, many relapse after treatment. Few studies have investigated biological markers predictive of follow-up clinical status. The objective was to determine if brain network connectivity patterns prior to intensive CBT predict worsening of clinical symptoms during follow-up.Entities:
Keywords: CBT; brain network; connectome; graph theory; resting-state fMRI
Year: 2015 PMID: 26042054 PMCID: PMC4438601 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyt.2015.00074
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychiatry ISSN: 1664-0640 Impact factor: 4.157
Demographics of OCD participants.
| Demographics | |
|---|---|
| Total participants ( | 17 |
| Gender (F/M) | 9/8 |
| Age (years) | 34.0 ± 9.43 |
| Years of education | 16.06 ± 2.19 |
| IQ (WASI) | 109.41 ± 6.14 |
| No comorbidities/comorbidities | 2/15 |
| Medicated/unmedicated during intensive CBT phase | 3/14 |
| Medication treatment only during follow-up phase | |
| CBT only during follow-up phase | |
| Medications and CBT during follow-up phase | |
| No treatment during follow-up phase | |
| Mean follow-up duration (mo.) | 7 ± 4.53 |
WASI, Wechsler Abbreviated Scales of Intelligence; CBT, cognitive-behavioral therapy.
Psychometrics of OCD participants.
| Psychometric | Pre-treatment | Post-treatment | Follow-up | Statistic | df | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YBOCS | 23.12 ± 3.04a | 13.76 ± 4.25b | 15.47 ± 6.65c | 1.44, 22.98 | <0.001 | |
| HAMA | 11.94 ± 4.78e | 8.06 ± 4.66f | 9.12 ± 4.92g | 2, 32 | 0.007 | |
| MADRS | 12.12 ± 5.51 | 9.53 ± 9.71 | 10.00 ± 4.86 | 1.43, 22.89 | 0.40 | |
| GAS | 59.06 ± 6.65h | 74.06 ± 13.66i | 73.65 ± 10.95j | 2, 32 | <0.001 | |
| Stroop interference | 54.59 ± 7.37 | 54.47 ± 7.88 | N/A | 16 | 0.92 | |
| Sheehan (%) | N/A | N/A | 27.25 ± 20.56 | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| QLESQ (%) | N/A | N/A | 59.56 ± 10.13 | N/A | N/A | N/A |
YBOCS, Yale Brown Obsessive–Compulsive Scale; HAMA, Hamilton Anxiety Scale; MADRS, Montgomery Åsberg Depression Rating Scale; GAS, Global Assessment Scale; Sheehan, Sheehan Disability Scale; QLESQ, Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire Short Form.
.
Figure 1Sagittal, axial, and coronal views of the 160 nodes used for the graph-theory analysis.
Figure 2Plot of graph-theory metrics pre- and post-treatment, derived from partial correlation matrices across sparsity levels from 0.1 to 0.5: (A) small-worldness, (B) clustering coefficient, (C) global efficiency, (D) local efficiency, (E) modularity. Error bars are ±1 SD.
Figure 3Plots of average values for area-under-the-curve network metrics with pre-treatment in black and post-treatment in red. Metrics that are significantly different (P < 0.0167) pre- vs. post-treatment are indicated by an asterisk.
Figure 4Plots showing change in metrics for individual participants pre- vs. post-treatment. The data for each plot were sorted by the pre-treatment values. Pre-treatment values are shown with black circles and post-treatment as red circles: (A) small-worldness, (B) clustering coefficient.
Figure 5(A) Scatterplot of small-worldness values vs. observed YBOCS changes in the post-treatment follow-up period; (B) linear regression results of predicted YBOCS changes vs. observed YBOCS changes. Note: (A) is shown purely to display the relationship between the two variables, while (B) depicts the linear regression results that control for the covariates of non-interest.