Trehani M Fonseka1, Glenda M MacQueen2, Sidney H Kennedy3. 1. Department of Psychiatry, Krembil Research Centre, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Department of Psychiatry, St. Michael's Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. 2. Department of Psychiatry, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada; Hotchkiss Brain Institute, Calgary, AB, Canada; Mathison Centre for Mental Health Research and Education, Calgary, AB, Canada. 3. Department of Psychiatry, Krembil Research Centre, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Department of Psychiatry, St. Michael's Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Keenan Research Centre for Biomedical Science, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada; Department of Psychiatry, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. Electronic address: KennedyS@smh.ca.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Current practice for selecting pharmacological and non-pharmacological antidepressant treatments has yielded low response and remission rates in Major Depressive Disorder (MDD). Neuroimaging biomarkers of brain structure and function may be useful in guiding treatment selection by predicting response vs. non-response outcomes. METHODS: In this review, we summarize data from studies examining predictors of treatment response using structural and functional neuroimaging modalities, as they pertain to pharmacotherapy, psychotherapy, and stimulation treatment strategies. A literature search was conducted in OVID Medline, EMBASE, and PsycINFO databases with coverage from January 1990 to January 2017. RESULTS: Several imaging biomarkers of therapeutic response in MDD emerged: frontolimbic regions, including the prefrontal cortex, anterior cingulate cortex, hippocampus, amygdala, and insula were regions of interest. Since these sub-regions are implicated in the etiology of MDD, their association with response outcomes may be the result of treatments having a normalizing effect on structural or activation abnormalities. LIMITATIONS: The direction of findings is inconsistent in studies examining these biomarkers, and variation across 'biotypes' within MDD may account for this. Limitations in sample size and differences in methodology likely also contribute. CONCLUSIONS: The identification of accurate, reliable neuroimaging biomarkers of treatment response holds promise toward improving treatment outcomes and reducing burden of illness for patients with MDD. However, before these biomarkers can be translated into clinical practice, they will need to be replicated and validated in large, independent samples, and integrated with data from other biological systems.
BACKGROUND: Current practice for selecting pharmacological and non-pharmacological antidepressant treatments has yielded low response and remission rates in Major Depressive Disorder (MDD). Neuroimaging biomarkers of brain structure and function may be useful in guiding treatment selection by predicting response vs. non-response outcomes. METHODS: In this review, we summarize data from studies examining predictors of treatment response using structural and functional neuroimaging modalities, as they pertain to pharmacotherapy, psychotherapy, and stimulation treatment strategies. A literature search was conducted in OVID Medline, EMBASE, and PsycINFO databases with coverage from January 1990 to January 2017. RESULTS: Several imaging biomarkers of therapeutic response in MDD emerged: frontolimbic regions, including the prefrontal cortex, anterior cingulate cortex, hippocampus, amygdala, and insula were regions of interest. Since these sub-regions are implicated in the etiology of MDD, their association with response outcomes may be the result of treatments having a normalizing effect on structural or activation abnormalities. LIMITATIONS: The direction of findings is inconsistent in studies examining these biomarkers, and variation across 'biotypes' within MDD may account for this. Limitations in sample size and differences in methodology likely also contribute. CONCLUSIONS: The identification of accurate, reliable neuroimaging biomarkers of treatment response holds promise toward improving treatment outcomes and reducing burden of illness for patients with MDD. However, before these biomarkers can be translated into clinical practice, they will need to be replicated and validated in large, independent samples, and integrated with data from other biological systems.
Authors: Laura M Hack; Gabriel R Fries; Harris A Eyre; Chad A Bousman; Ajeet B Singh; Joao Quevedo; Vineeth P John; Bernhard T Baune; Boadie W Dunlop Journal: J Affect Disord Date: 2019-02-06 Impact factor: 4.839
Authors: Elizabeth A Bartlett; Christine DeLorenzo; Priya Sharma; Jie Yang; Mengru Zhang; Eva Petkova; Myrna Weissman; Patrick J McGrath; Maurizio Fava; R Todd Ogden; Benji T Kurian; Ashley Malchow; Crystal M Cooper; Joseph M Trombello; Melvin McInnis; Phillip Adams; Maria A Oquendo; Diego A Pizzagalli; Madhukar Trivedi; Ramin V Parsey Journal: Neuropsychopharmacology Date: 2018-06-19 Impact factor: 7.853
Authors: Glenda M. MacQueen; Stefanie Hassel; Stephen R. Arnott; Addington Jean; Christopher R. Bowie; Signe L. Bray; Andrew D. Davis; Jonathan Downar; Jane A. Foster; Benicio N. Frey; Benjamin I. Goldstein; Geoffrey B. Hall; Kate L. Harkness; Jacqueline Harris; Raymond W. Lam; Catherine Lebel; Roumen Milev; Daniel J. Müller; Sagar V. Parikh; Sakina Rizvi; Susan Rotzinger; Gulshan B. Sharma; Claudio N. Soares; Gustavo Turecki; Fidel Vila-Rodriguez; Joanna Yu; Mojdeh Zamyadi; Stephen C. Strother; Sidney H. Kennedy Journal: J Psychiatry Neurosci Date: 2019-07-01 Impact factor: 6.186
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: Daniel Keeser; Lucia Bulubas; Frank Padberg; Eva Mezger; Paulo Suen; Priscila V Bueno; Fabio Duran; Geraldo Busatto; Edson Amaro; Isabela M Benseñor; Paulo A Lotufo; Stephan Goerigk; Wagner Gattaz; Andre R Brunoni Journal: Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci Date: 2020-09-02 Impact factor: 5.270
Authors: Jennifer T Sneider; Julia E Cohen-Gilbert; Derek A Hamilton; Anna M Seraikas; Emily N Oot; Eleanor M Schuttenberg; Lisa D Nickerson; Marisa M Silveri Journal: Psychiatry Res Neuroimaging Date: 2020-10-09 Impact factor: 2.376