Literature DB >> 34916068

Patterns of Pretreatment Reward Task Brain Activation Predict Individual Antidepressant Response: Key Results From the EMBARC Randomized Clinical Trial.

Kevin P Nguyen1, Cherise Chin Fatt2, Alex Treacher1, Cooper Mellema1, Crystal Cooper3, Manish K Jha2, Benji Kurian2, Maurizio Fava4, Patrick J McGrath5, Myrna Weissman5, Mary L Phillips6, Madhukar H Trivedi7, Albert A Montillo8.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The lack of biomarkers to inform antidepressant selection is a key challenge in personalized depression treatment. This work identifies candidate biomarkers by building deep learning predictors of individual treatment outcomes using reward processing measures from functional magnetic resonance imaging, clinical assessments, and demographics.
METHODS: Participants in the EMBARC (Establishing Moderators and Biosignatures of Antidepressant Response in Clinical Care) study (n = 222) underwent reward processing task-based functional magnetic resonance imaging at baseline and were randomized to 8 weeks of sertraline (n = 106) or placebo (n = 116). Subsequently, sertraline nonresponders (n = 37) switched to 8 weeks of bupropion. The change in Hamilton Depression Rating Scale was measured after treatment. Reward processing, clinical measurements, and demographics were used to train treatment-specific deep learning models.
RESULTS: The predictive model for sertraline achieved R2 of 48% (95% CI, 33%-61%; p < 10-3) in predicting the change in Hamilton Depression Rating Scale and number-needed-to-treat (NNT) of 4.86 participants in predicting response. The placebo model achieved R2 of 28% (95% CI, 15%-42%; p < 10-3) and NNT of 2.95 in predicting response. The bupropion model achieved R2 of 34% (95% CI, 10%-59%, p < 10-3) and NNT of 1.68 in predicting response. Brain regions where reward processing activity was predictive included the prefrontal cortex and cerebellar crus 1 for sertraline and the cingulate cortex, caudate, orbitofrontal cortex, and crus 1 for bupropion.
CONCLUSIONS: These findings demonstrate the utility of reward processing measurements and deep learning to predict antidepressant outcomes and to form multimodal treatment biomarkers.
Copyright © 2021 Society of Biological Psychiatry. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Antidepressants; Deep learning; Depression; Precision medicine; Treatment selection; fMRI

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34916068      PMCID: PMC8857018          DOI: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2021.09.011

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Biol Psychiatry        ISSN: 0006-3223            Impact factor:   13.382


  35 in total

1.  Depression, antidepressants, and the shrinking hippocampus.

Authors:  R M Sapolsky
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2001-10-23       Impact factor: 11.205

Review 2.  In pursuit of neuroimaging biomarkers to guide treatment selection in major depressive disorder: a review of the literature.

Authors:  Marc S Lener; Dan V Iosifescu
Journal:  Ann N Y Acad Sci       Date:  2015-04-08       Impact factor: 5.691

Review 3.  A critical review of pharmacotherapy for major depressive disorder.

Authors:  Jamie M Dupuy; Michael J Ostacher; Jeffrey Huffman; Roy H Perlis; Andrew A Nierenberg
Journal:  Int J Neuropsychopharmacol       Date:  2011-02-24       Impact factor: 5.176

4.  Effect of bupropion extended release on negative emotion processing in major depressive disorder: a pilot functional magnetic resonance imaging study.

Authors:  Brigitte Robertson; Lihong Wang; Michele T Diaz; Marilyn Aiello; Kenneth Gersing; John Beyer; Srinivasan Mukundan; Gregory McCarthy; P Murali Doraiswamy
Journal:  J Clin Psychiatry       Date:  2007-02       Impact factor: 4.384

5.  Acute and longer-term outcomes in depressed outpatients requiring one or several treatment steps: a STAR*D report.

Authors:  A John Rush; Madhukar H Trivedi; Stephen R Wisniewski; Andrew A Nierenberg; Jonathan W Stewart; Diane Warden; George Niederehe; Michael E Thase; Philip W Lavori; Barry D Lebowitz; Patrick J McGrath; Jerrold F Rosenbaum; Harold A Sackeim; David J Kupfer; James Luther; Maurizio Fava
Journal:  Am J Psychiatry       Date:  2006-11       Impact factor: 18.112

6.  Reward-related decision-making in pediatric major depressive disorder: an fMRI study.

Authors:  Erika E Forbes; J Christopher May; Greg J Siegle; Cecile D Ladouceur; Neal D Ryan; Cameron S Carter; Boris Birmaher; David A Axelson; Ronald E Dahl
Journal:  J Child Psychol Psychiatry       Date:  2006-10       Impact factor: 8.982

7.  Practising evidence-based medicine in an era of high placebo response: number needed to treat reconsidered.

Authors:  Steven P Roose; Bret R Rutherford; Melanie M Wall; Michael E Thase
Journal:  Br J Psychiatry       Date:  2016-05       Impact factor: 9.319

8.  Pretreatment Rostral Anterior Cingulate Cortex Theta Activity in Relation to Symptom Improvement in Depression: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Authors:  Diego A Pizzagalli; Christian A Webb; Daniel G Dillon; Craig E Tenke; Jürgen Kayser; Franziska Goer; Maurizio Fava; Patrick McGrath; Myrna Weissman; Ramin Parsey; Phil Adams; Joseph Trombello; Crystal Cooper; Patricia Deldin; Maria A Oquendo; Melvin G McInnis; Thomas Carmody; Gerard Bruder; Madhukar H Trivedi
Journal:  JAMA Psychiatry       Date:  2018-06-01       Impact factor: 21.596

9.  Brain imaging correlates of depressive symptom severity and predictors of symptom improvement after antidepressant treatment.

Authors:  Chi-Hua Chen; Khanum Ridler; John Suckling; Steve Williams; Cynthia H Y Fu; Emilio Merlo-Pich; Ed Bullmore
Journal:  Biol Psychiatry       Date:  2007-01-09       Impact factor: 13.382

10.  Bias in error estimation when using cross-validation for model selection.

Authors:  Sudhir Varma; Richard Simon
Journal:  BMC Bioinformatics       Date:  2006-02-23       Impact factor: 3.169

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.