Katherine S Young1, Richard T LeBeau1, Andrea N Niles2, Kean J Hsu3, Lisa J Burklund1, Bita Mesri1, Darby Saxbe4, Matthew D Lieberman1, Michelle G Craske5. 1. Department of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles, 405 Hilgard Avenue, Los Angeles, USA. 2. Department of Psychiatry, University of California, San Francisco, USA. 3. University of Texas at Austin, USA. 4. Department of Psychology, University of Southern California, USA. 5. Department of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles, 405 Hilgard Avenue, Los Angeles, USA. Electronic address: craske@psych.ucla.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although psychological treatments for social anxiety disorder (SAD) can be highly effective, many individuals do not respond to treatment. Identifying factors associated with improved outcomes can facilitate individualized treatment choices. We investigated whether patterns of neural connectivity predicted treatment responses and whether treatment type, cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) or acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT), moderated this effect. METHODS: Participants with SAD (n = 34) underwent fMRI prior to treatment and completed implicit and explicit emotion regulation tasks. Neural connectivity measures were estimates of amygdala-prefrontal cortex connectivity. Treatment responder status was defined using the 'clinically significant change index' (Loerinc et al., 2015). RESULTS: Right amygdala-right ventrolateral prefrontal cortex connectivity during implicit emotion regulation was a significant predictor of treatment response (OR = 9.01, 95% CI = 1.77, 46.0, p = .008). Stronger inverse connectivity was associated with greater likelihood of treatment response. There were no significant neural moderators of treatment response to CBT versus ACT. LIMITATIONS: The primary limitation of this work was the small sample size which restricted the power to detect significant moderation effects, and results should be interpreted as preliminary. CONCLUSIONS: Amygdala-vlPFC connectivity during affect labeling predicted treatment responder status following CBT or ACT for social anxiety disorder. This suggests that the functioning of neural circuitry supporting emotion regulation capacities may be a 'gateway' to receiving benefit from psychological treatments. Future work should aim to replicate this effect in a larger sample and consider methods for enhancing functional connectivity within this circuitry as a potential treatment adjunct.
BACKGROUND: Although psychological treatments for social anxiety disorder (SAD) can be highly effective, many individuals do not respond to treatment. Identifying factors associated with improved outcomes can facilitate individualized treatment choices. We investigated whether patterns of neural connectivity predicted treatment responses and whether treatment type, cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) or acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT), moderated this effect. METHODS:Participants with SAD (n = 34) underwent fMRI prior to treatment and completed implicit and explicit emotion regulation tasks. Neural connectivity measures were estimates of amygdala-prefrontal cortex connectivity. Treatment responder status was defined using the 'clinically significant change index' (Loerinc et al., 2015). RESULTS: Right amygdala-right ventrolateral prefrontal cortex connectivity during implicit emotion regulation was a significant predictor of treatment response (OR = 9.01, 95% CI = 1.77, 46.0, p = .008). Stronger inverse connectivity was associated with greater likelihood of treatment response. There were no significant neural moderators of treatment response to CBT versus ACT. LIMITATIONS: The primary limitation of this work was the small sample size which restricted the power to detect significant moderation effects, and results should be interpreted as preliminary. CONCLUSIONS: Amygdala-vlPFC connectivity during affect labeling predicted treatment responder status following CBT or ACT for social anxiety disorder. This suggests that the functioning of neural circuitry supporting emotion regulation capacities may be a 'gateway' to receiving benefit from psychological treatments. Future work should aim to replicate this effect in a larger sample and consider methods for enhancing functional connectivity within this circuitry as a potential treatment adjunct.
Authors: Amanda G Loerinc; Alicia E Meuret; Michael P Twohig; David Rosenfield; Ellen J Bluett; Michelle G Craske Journal: Clin Psychol Rev Date: 2015-08-14
Authors: Maria Cecilia Freitas-Ferrari; Jaime E C Hallak; Clarissa Trzesniak; Alaor Santos Filho; João Paulo Machado-de-Sousa; Marcos Hortes N Chagas; Antonio E Nardi; José Alexandre S Crippa Journal: Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry Date: 2010-03-04 Impact factor: 5.067
Authors: Lisa J Burklund; Michelle G Craske; Shelley E Taylor; Matthew D Lieberman Journal: Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci Date: 2014-05-08 Impact factor: 3.436
Authors: Philippe R Goldin; Michal Ziv; Hooria Jazaieri; Kevin Hahn; Richard Heimberg; James J Gross Journal: JAMA Psychiatry Date: 2013-10 Impact factor: 21.596
Authors: Wuyi Wang; Simon Zhornitsky; Clara S-P Li; Thang M Le; Jutta Joormann; Chiang-Shan R Li Journal: J Affect Disord Date: 2019-05-27 Impact factor: 4.839
Authors: Christina F Sandman; Katherine S Young; Lisa J Burklund; Darby E Saxbe; Matthew D Lieberman; Michelle G Craske Journal: Behav Res Ther Date: 2020-03-29
Authors: Yoni K Ashar; Joseph Clark; Faith M Gunning; Philippe Goldin; James J Gross; Tor D Wager Journal: Transl Psychiatry Date: 2021-05-01 Impact factor: 7.989
Authors: W Tommy Baumel; Lu Lu; Xiaoqi Huang; Andrew T Drysdale; John A Sweeny; Qiyong Gong; Chad M Sylvester; Jeffrey R Strawn Journal: Biomark Neuropsychiatry Date: 2022-04-22