Megha M Vasavada1, Amber M Leaver1, Randall T Espinoza2, Shantanu H Joshi1, Stephanie N Njau1, Roger P Woods3, Katherine L Narr4. 1. Ahmanson-Lovelace Brain Mapping Center, Department of Neurology, Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 2. Jane and Terry Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior, Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 3. Ahmanson-Lovelace Brain Mapping Center, Department of Neurology, Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA; Jane and Terry Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior, Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 4. Ahmanson-Lovelace Brain Mapping Center, Department of Neurology, Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA; Jane and Terry Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior, Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA. Electronic address: narr@ucla.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ketamine elicits an acute antidepressant effect in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD). Here, we used diffusion imaging to explore whether regional differences in white matter microstructure prior to treatment may predict clinical response 24h following ketamine infusion in 10 MDD patients. METHODS: FSL's Tract-Based Spatial Statistics (TBSS) established voxel-level differences in fractional anisotropy (FA) between responders (patients showing >50% improvement in symptoms 24h post-infusion) and non-responders in major white matter pathways. Follow-up regions-of-interest (ROI) analyses examined differences in FA and radial (RD), axial (AD) and mean diffusivity (MD) between responders and non-responders and 15 age- and sex-matched controls, with groups compared pairwise. RESULTS: Whole brain TBSS (p<0.05, corrected) and confirmatory tract-based regions-of-interest analyses showed larger FA values in the cingulum and forceps minor in responders compared to non-responders; complementary decreases in RD occurred in the cingulum (p<0.05). Only non-responders differed from controls showing decreased FA in the forceps minor, increased RD in the cingulum and forceps minor, and increased MD in the forceps minor (p<0.05). LIMITATIONS: Non-responders showed an earlier age of onset and longer current depressive episode than responders. Though these factors did not interact with diffusion metrics, results may be impacted by the limited sample size. CONCLUSIONS: Though findings are considered preliminary, significant differences in FA, RD and MD shown in non-responders compared to responders and controls in fronto-limbic and ventral striatal pathways suggest that the structural architecture of specific functional networks mediating emotion may predict ketamine response in MDD.
BACKGROUND:Ketamine elicits an acute antidepressant effect in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD). Here, we used diffusion imaging to explore whether regional differences in white matter microstructure prior to treatment may predict clinical response 24h following ketamine infusion in 10 MDDpatients. METHODS: FSL's Tract-Based Spatial Statistics (TBSS) established voxel-level differences in fractional anisotropy (FA) between responders (patients showing >50% improvement in symptoms 24h post-infusion) and non-responders in major white matter pathways. Follow-up regions-of-interest (ROI) analyses examined differences in FA and radial (RD), axial (AD) and mean diffusivity (MD) between responders and non-responders and 15 age- and sex-matched controls, with groups compared pairwise. RESULTS: Whole brain TBSS (p<0.05, corrected) and confirmatory tract-based regions-of-interest analyses showed larger FA values in the cingulum and forceps minor in responders compared to non-responders; complementary decreases in RD occurred in the cingulum (p<0.05). Only non-responders differed from controls showing decreased FA in the forceps minor, increased RD in the cingulum and forceps minor, and increased MD in the forceps minor (p<0.05). LIMITATIONS: Non-responders showed an earlier age of onset and longer current depressive episode than responders. Though these factors did not interact with diffusion metrics, results may be impacted by the limited sample size. CONCLUSIONS: Though findings are considered preliminary, significant differences in FA, RD and MD shown in non-responders compared to responders and controls in fronto-limbic and ventral striatal pathways suggest that the structural architecture of specific functional networks mediating emotion may predict ketamine response in MDD.
Authors: Setsu Wakana; Hangyi Jiang; Lidia M Nagae-Poetscher; Peter C M van Zijl; Susumu Mori Journal: Radiology Date: 2003-11-26 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Madhukar H Trivedi; A John Rush; Stephen R Wisniewski; Andrew A Nierenberg; Diane Warden; Louise Ritz; Grayson Norquist; Robert H Howland; Barry Lebowitz; Patrick J McGrath; Kathy Shores-Wilson; Melanie M Biggs; G K Balasubramani; Maurizio Fava Journal: Am J Psychiatry Date: 2006-01 Impact factor: 18.112
Authors: Stephen M Smith; Mark Jenkinson; Mark W Woolrich; Christian F Beckmann; Timothy E J Behrens; Heidi Johansen-Berg; Peter R Bannister; Marilena De Luca; Ivana Drobnjak; David E Flitney; Rami K Niazy; James Saunders; John Vickers; Yongyue Zhang; Nicola De Stefano; J Michael Brady; Paul M Matthews Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2004 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Paul J Carlson; Nancy Diazgranados; Allison C Nugent; Lobna Ibrahim; David A Luckenbaugh; Nancy Brutsche; Peter Herscovitch; Husseini K Manji; Carlos A Zarate; Wayne C Drevets Journal: Biol Psychiatry Date: 2013-03-27 Impact factor: 13.382
Authors: Robin Ortiz; Mark J Niciu; Nada Lukkahati; Leorey N Saligan; Allison C Nugent; David A Luckenbaugh; Rodrigo Machado-Vieira; Carlos A Zarate Journal: J Affect Disord Date: 2014-10-16 Impact factor: 4.839
Authors: Warren D Taylor; Maragatha Kuchibhatla; Martha E Payne; James R Macfall; Yvette I Sheline; K Ranga Krishnan; P Murali Doraiswamy Journal: PLoS One Date: 2008-09-24 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Allison C Nugent; Cristan Farmer; Jennifer W Evans; Sam L Snider; Dipavo Banerjee; Carlos A Zarate Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2019-06-09 Impact factor: 5.038
Authors: Rajapillai L I Pillai; Chuan Huang; Andrew LaBella; Mengru Zhang; Jie Yang; Madhukar Trivedi; Myrna Weissman; Patrick McGrath; Maurizio Fava; Benji Kurian; Crystal Cooper; Melvin McInnis; Maria A Oquendo; Diego A Pizzagalli; Ramin V Parsey; Christine DeLorenzo Journal: J Affect Disord Date: 2019-05-28 Impact factor: 4.839
Authors: Dawn F Ionescu; Julia M Felicione; Aishwarya Gosai; Cristina Cusin; Philip Shin; Benjamin G Shapero; Thilo Deckersbach Journal: Harv Rev Psychiatry Date: 2018 Nov/Dec Impact factor: 3.732
Authors: Megha M Vasavada; Joana Loureiro; Antoni Kubicki; Ashish Sahib; Benjamin Wade; Gerhard Hellemann; Randall T Espinoza; Eliza Congdon; Katherine L Narr; Amber M Leaver Journal: Biol Psychiatry Cogn Neurosci Neuroimaging Date: 2020-07-03