G Voegeli1,2, M L Cléry-Melin3,4, N Ramoz3,4, P Gorwood3,4. 1. CMME, Hôpital Sainte-Anne, Université Paris Descartes, 100 rue de la Santé, 75014, Paris, France. g.voegeli@ch-sainte-anne.fr. 2. Centre de Psychiatrie et Neuroscience (INSERM UMR 894), 2 ter rue d'Alésia, 75014, Paris, France. g.voegeli@ch-sainte-anne.fr. 3. CMME, Hôpital Sainte-Anne, Université Paris Descartes, 100 rue de la Santé, 75014, Paris, France. 4. Centre de Psychiatrie et Neuroscience (INSERM UMR 894), 2 ter rue d'Alésia, 75014, Paris, France.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Antidepressant drugs are widely prescribed, but response rates after 3 months are only around one-third, explaining the importance of the search of objectively measurable markers predicting positive treatment response. These markers are being developed in different fields, with different techniques, sample sizes, costs, and efficiency. It is therefore difficult to know which ones are the most promising. OBJECTIVE: Our purpose was to compute comparable (i.e., standardized) effect sizes, at study level but also at marker level, in order to conclude on the efficacy of each technique used and all analyzed markers. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search on the PubMed database to gather all articles published since 2000 using objectively measurable markers to predict antidepressant response from five domains, namely cognition, electrophysiology, imaging, genetics, and transcriptomics/proteomics/epigenetics. A manual screening of the abstracts and the reference lists of these articles completed the search process. RESULTS: Executive functioning, theta activity in the rostral Anterior Cingular Cortex (rACC), and polysomnographic sleep measures could be considered as belonging to the best objectively measured markers, with a combined d around 1 and at least four positive studies. For inter-category comparisons, the approaches that showed the highest effect sizes are, in descending order, imaging (combined d between 0.703 and 1.353), electrophysiology (0.294-1.138), cognition (0.929-1.022), proteins/nucleotides (0.520-1.18), and genetics (0.021-0.515). CONCLUSION: Markers of antidepressant treatment outcome are numerous, but with a discrepant level of accuracy. Many biomarkers and cognitions have sufficient predictive value (d ≥ 1) to be potentially useful for clinicians to predict outcome and personalize antidepressant treatment.
BACKGROUND: Antidepressant drugs are widely prescribed, but response rates after 3 months are only around one-third, explaining the importance of the search of objectively measurable markers predicting positive treatment response. These markers are being developed in different fields, with different techniques, sample sizes, costs, and efficiency. It is therefore difficult to know which ones are the most promising. OBJECTIVE: Our purpose was to compute comparable (i.e., standardized) effect sizes, at study level but also at marker level, in order to conclude on the efficacy of each technique used and all analyzed markers. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search on the PubMed database to gather all articles published since 2000 using objectively measurable markers to predict antidepressant response from five domains, namely cognition, electrophysiology, imaging, genetics, and transcriptomics/proteomics/epigenetics. A manual screening of the abstracts and the reference lists of these articles completed the search process. RESULTS: Executive functioning, theta activity in the rostral Anterior Cingular Cortex (rACC), and polysomnographic sleep measures could be considered as belonging to the best objectively measured markers, with a combined d around 1 and at least four positive studies. For inter-category comparisons, the approaches that showed the highest effect sizes are, in descending order, imaging (combined d between 0.703 and 1.353), electrophysiology (0.294-1.138), cognition (0.929-1.022), proteins/nucleotides (0.520-1.18), and genetics (0.021-0.515). CONCLUSION: Markers of antidepressant treatment outcome are numerous, but with a discrepant level of accuracy. Many biomarkers and cognitions have sufficient predictive value (d ≥ 1) to be potentially useful for clinicians to predict outcome and personalize antidepressant treatment.
Authors: Ronnen H Segman; Yami Shapira; Ilan Modai; Adnan Hamdan; Joseph Zislin; Uriel Heresco-Levy; Kyra Kanyas; Shmuel Hirschmann; Osnat Karni; Boris Finkel; Michael Schlafman; Arturo Lerner; Baruch Shapira; Fabio Macciardi; Bernard Lerer Journal: Am J Med Genet Date: 2002-04-08
Authors: John T Little; Terence A Ketter; Tim A Kimbrell; Robert T Dunn; Brenda E Benson; Mark W Willis; David A Luckenbaugh; Robert M Post Journal: Biol Psychiatry Date: 2005-02-01 Impact factor: 13.382
Authors: Merja Viikki; Olli Kampman; Ari Illi; Eija Setälä-Soikkeli; Sami Anttila; Martti Huuhka; Timo Nuolivirta; Outi Poutanen; Nina Mononen; Terho Lehtimäki; Esa Leinonen Journal: Neurosci Lett Date: 2009-10-27 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: Magnus Lekman; Gonzalo Laje; Dennis Charney; A John Rush; Alexander F Wilson; Alexa J M Sorant; Robert Lipsky; Stephen R Wisniewski; Husseini Manji; Francis J McMahon; Silvia Paddock Journal: Biol Psychiatry Date: 2008-01-11 Impact factor: 13.382
Authors: Micaela V McCall; Patricio Riva-Posse; Steven J Garlow; Helen S Mayberg; Andrea L Crowell Journal: Neurol Psychiatry Brain Res Date: 2020-06-11
Authors: Nadine Dreimüller; Stefanie Wagner; Alice Engel; Dieter F Braus; Sibylle C Roll; Stefan Elsner; André Tadić; Klaus Lieb Journal: BMC Psychiatry Date: 2019-01-14 Impact factor: 3.630