For decades, predicting response to the antidepressant medication has been a critical unmet need in depression treatment in clinic, and a technical challenge in depression research.
Methods:
In this study, a recently developed functional brain network controllability (fBNC) analysis approach was employed to identify the antidepressant treatment responders and nonresponders from depression patients at the pretreatment period. The fBNC, which captures the ability of brain regions to guide the brain's behavior from an initial state to a desired state with suitable choice of inputs, may provide valuable features for antidepressant response prediction. The performance of prediction was evaluated using resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging data collected from a 6-week longitudinal clinical trial with escitalopram in treating unmedicated depression patients (n = 20). Treatment outcomes were assessed using the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD) scores. Patients were considered as the treatment responders if their post-treatment HAMD scores were decreased by 50% or more at 6 weeks post-treatment.
Results:
Results showed significantly larger global average controllability and lower global modal controllability, greater regional average controllability, and smaller regional modal controllability of default mode network in treatment responders compared with the treatment nonresponders at the pretreatment period. By performing optimal control analysis, our results showed no significant difference of the neuromodulation effects between the treatment responders and nonresponders.
Discussion:
Our results suggest that the fBNC measures may be utilized as novel biomarkers to predict antidepressant response on depression and provide theoretical support to employ neuromodulation for treating antidepressant nonresponders.
Impact statement
In this study, by employing the novel functional brain controllability analysis on top of the brain connectivity network, we identified a set of biomarkers to identify the groups of depressive patients who responded to the antidepressant treatments from those who did not. We further provided the theoretical support to utilize neuromodulation for treating antidepressant nonresponders. These findings have clinical implications as accurate identification of antidepressant treatment response before starting the treatment may reduce patients' suffering and costs and increase the treatment outcomes by adjusting and personalizing the treatment protocol.
AlarioAA, NiciuMJ. 2021. Biomarkers of ketamine's antidepressant effect: a clinical review of genetics, functional connectivity, and neurophysiology. Chronic Stress, 5:24705470211014210.
3.
AshburnerJ, BarnesG, ChenC-C, et al. 2014. SPM12 Manual. London, United Kingdom: Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging; p.2464.
4.
BaggioG, BassettDS, PasqualettiF. 2021. Data-driven control of complex networks. Nat Commun, 12:1–13.
5.
BenjaminiY, HochbergY. 1995. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J R Stat Soc Series B Methodol, 57:289–300.
6.
BewernickBH, KayserS, SturmV, et al.2012. Long-term effects of nucleus accumbens deep brain stimulation in treatment-resistant depression: evidence for sustained efficacy. Neuropsychopharmacology, 37:1975–1985.
7.
BirnRM, MolloyEK, PatriatR, et al.2013. The effect of scan length on the reliability of resting-state fMRI connectivity estimates. Neuroimage, 83:550–558.
8.
BraunU, PlichtaMM, EsslingerC, et al.2012. Test–retest reliability of resting-state connectivity network characteristics using fMRI and graph theoretical measures. Neuroimage, 59:1404–1412.
9.
CohenSE, ZantvoordJB, WezenbergBN, et al.2021. Magnetic resonance imaging for individual prediction of treatment response in major depressive disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Transl Psychiatry, 11:1–10.
10.
ColeDM, SmithSM, BeckmannCF. 2010. Advances and pitfalls in the analysis and interpretation of resting-state FMRI data. Front Syst Neurosci, 4:8.
11.
CostafredaSG, ChuC, AshburnerJ, et al.2009. Prognostic and diagnostic potential of the structural neuroanatomy of depression. PLoS One, 4:e6353.
12.
DelongMR, WichmannT. 2015. Basal ganglia circuits as targets for neuromodulation in Parkinson disease. JAMA Neurol, 72:1354–1360.
DengZ-D, DavisS, SzymanskiA, et al.2018. T176. Controllability of structural brain networks in depressed patients receiving repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation. Biol Psychiatry, 83:S196.
15.
FangF, GaoY, SchulzPE, et al.2021. Brain controllability distinctiveness between depression and cognitive impairment. J Affect Disord, 294:847–856.
16.
FangF, PotterT, NguyenT, et al.2020. Dynamic reorganization of the cortical functional brain network in affective processing and cognitive reappraisal. Int J Neural Syst, 30:2050051.
17.
FenoyAJ, SchulzP, SelvarajS, et al.2016. Deep brain stimulation of the medial forebrain bundle: distinctive responses in resistant depression. J Affect Disord, 203:143–151.
18.
FiferMS, HotsonG, WesterBA, et al.2013. Simultaneous neural control of simple reaching and grasping with the modular prosthetic limb using intracranial EEG. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng, 22:695–705.
19.
GeugiesH, OpmeerE, MarsmanJ, et al.2019. Decreased functional connectivity of the insula within the salience network as an indicator for prospective insufficient response to antidepressants. Neuroimage Clin, 24:102064.
20.
GilsonM, Moreno-BoteR, Ponce-AlvarezA, et al.2016. Estimation of directed effective connectivity from fMRI functional connectivity hints at asymmetries of cortical connectome. PLoS Comput Biol, 12:e1004762.
21.
GodlewskaB, BrowningM, NorburyR, et al.2016. Early changes in emotional processing as a marker of clinical response to SSRI treatment in depression. Transl Psychiatry, 6:e957.
22.
GodlewskaB, NorburyR, SelvarajS, et al.2012. Short-term SSRI treatment normalises amygdala hyperactivity in depressed patients. Psychol Med, 42:2609–2617.
23.
GuS, PasqualettiF, CieslakM, et al.2015. Controllability of structural brain networks. Nat Commun, 6:1–10.
24.
GyurakA, PatenaudeB, KorgaonkarMS, et al.2016. Frontoparietal activation during response inhibition predicts remission to antidepressants in patients with major depression. Biol Psychiatry, 79:274–281.
25.
HarveyP-O, FossatiP, PochonJ-B, et al.2005. Cognitive control and brain resources in major depression: an fMRI study using the n-back task. Neuroimage, 26:860–869.
26.
HellyerPJ, ShanahanM, ScottG, et al.2014. The control of global brain dynamics: opposing actions of frontoparietal control and default mode networks on attention. J Neurosci, 34:451–461.
27.
HongY, LeeS. 2014. Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis of variance based on linear placements. Bull Korean Math Soc, 51:701–716.
28.
HornA, OstwaldD, ReisertM, et al.2014. The structural–functional connectome and the default mode network of the human brain. Neuroimage, 102:142–151.
29.
JanicakPG, DokucuME. 2015. Transcranial magnetic stimulation for the treatment of major depression. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat, 11:1549.
30.
JeganathanJ, PerryA, BassettDS, et al.2018. Fronto-limbic dysconnectivity leads to impaired brain network controllability in young people with bipolar disorder and those at high genetic risk. Neuroimage Clin, 19:71–81.
31.
JerbiK, LachauxJ-P, KarimN, et al.2007. Coherent neural representation of hand speed in humans revealed by MEG imaging. Proc Natl Acad Sci, 104:7676–7681.
32.
JiaZ, PengW, ChenZ, et al.2017. Magnetization transfer imaging of treatment-resistant depression. Radiology, 284:521–529.
33.
KarrerTM, KimJZ, StisoJ, et al.2020. A practical guide to methodological considerations in the controllability of structural brain networks. J Neural Eng, 17:026031.
34.
KenettYN, BeatyRE. MedagliaJD. 2018. A computational network control theory analysis of depression symptoms. Personal Neurosci, 1:e16.
35.
KimbrellTA, KetterTA, GeorgeMS, et al.2002. Regional cerebral glucose utilization in patients with a range of severities of unipolar depression. Biol Psychiatry, 51:237–252.
36.
KleinA, TourvilleJ. 2012. 101 labeled brain images and a consistent human cortical labeling protocol. Front Neurosci, 6:171.
37.
Klimes-DouganB, SchreinerMW, ThaiM, et al.2018. Neural and neuroendocrine predictors of pharmacological treatment response in adolescents with depression: a preliminary study. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry, 81:194–202.
38.
KorgaonkarMS, Goldstein-PiekarskiAN, FornitoA, et al.2020. Intrinsic connectomes are a predictive biomarker of remission in major depressive disorder. Mol Psychiatry, 25:1537–1549.
39.
KozelFA, RaoU, LuH, et al.2011. Functional connectivity of brain structures correlates with treatment outcome in major depressive disorder. Front Psychiatry, 2:7.
40.
KumarA, JinZ, BilkerW, et al.1998. Late-onset minor and major depression: early evidence for common neuroanatomical substrates detected by using MRI. Proc Natl Acad Sci, 95:7654–7658.
41.
LiJ, KukA, RushA. 2012. A practical approach to the early identification of antidepressant medication non-responders. Psychol Med, 42:309–316.
42.
LiR, LiS, RohJ, et al.2020. Multimodal neuroimaging using concurrent EEG/fNIRS for Poststroke Recovery Assessment: an exploratory study. Neurorehabil Neural Repair, 34:1099–1110.
43.
LiR, RuiG, ZhaoC, et al.2019. Functional network alterations in patients with amnestic mild cognitive impairment characterized using functional near-infrared spectroscopy. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng, 28:123–132.
44.
López-SolàM, PujolJ, Hernández-RibasR, et al.2010. Effects of duloxetine treatment on brain response to painful stimulation in major depressive disorder. Neuropsychopharmacology, 35:2305–2317.
45.
LuoY, YangW, LiN, et al.2020. Anodal transcranial direct current stimulation can improve spatial learning and memory and attenuate Aβ42 burden at the early stage of alzheimer's disease in APP/PS1 transgenic mice. Front Aging Neurosci, 12:134.
46.
McGrathCL, KelleyME, HoltzheimerPE, et al.2013. Toward a neuroimaging treatment selection biomarker for major depressive disorder. JAMA Psychiatry, 70:821–829.
47.
McKnightPE, NajabJ. 2010. Mann-Whitney U test. The Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology. p. 1.
48.
MedagliaJD, PasqualettiF, HamiltonRH, et al.2017. Brain and cognitive reserve: translation via network control theory. Neurosci Biobehav Rev, 75:53–64.
49.
MenonV, UddinLQ. 2010. Saliency, switching, attention and control: a network model of insula function. Brain Struct Funct, 214:655–667.
50.
Meyer-BäseL, SaadF, TahmassebiA. Controllability of Structural Brain Networks in Dementia. Medical Imaging 2020: Biomedical Applications in Molecular, Structural, and Functional Imaging. International Society for Optics and Photonics, 2020, 113171W.
51.
MuldoonSF, PasqualettiF, GuS, et al.2016. Stimulation-based control of dynamic brain networks. PLoS Comput Biol, 12:e1005076.
52.
PerreyS.2014. Possibilities for examining the neural control of gait in humans with fNIRS. Front Physiol, 5:204.
53.
PreussA, BolligerB, SchichoW, et al.2020. SSRI treatment response prediction in depression based on brain activation by emotional stimuli. Front Physiol, 11:1071.
54.
QuinnME, StangeJP, JenkinsLM, et al.2018. Cognitive control and network disruption in remitted depression: a correlate of childhood adversity. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci, 13:1081–1090.
55.
RaichleME.2015. The brain's default mode network. Annu Rev Neurosci, 38:433–447.
56.
Rosa-NetoP, DiksicM, OkazawaH, et al.2004. Measurement of brain regional α-[11C] methyl-L-tryptophan trapping as a measure of serotonin synthesis in medication-freepatients with major depression. Arch Gen Psychiatry, 61:556–563.
57.
RutherfordBR, RooseSP. 2013. A model of placebo response in antidepressant clinical trials. Am J Psychiatry, 170:723–733.
58.
Sicras-MainarA, Navarro-ArtiedaR. 2016. Use of antidepressants in the treatment of major depressive disorder in primary care during a period of economic crisis. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat, 12:29.
59.
SlizD, HayleyS. 2012. Major depressive disorder and alterations in insular cortical activity: a review of current functional magnetic imaging research. Front Hum Neurosci, 6:323.
60.
SpiesM, KrausC, GeissbergerN, et al.2017. Default mode network deactivation during emotion processing predicts early antidepressant response. Transl Psychiatry, 7:e1008.
61.
StisoJ, KhambhatiAN, MenaraT, et al.2019. White matter network architecture guides direct electrical stimulation through optimal state transitions. Cell Rep, 28:2554–2566.e7.
62.
TangE, GiustiC, BaumGL, et al.2017. Developmental increases in white matter network controllability support a growing diversity of brain dynamics. Nat Commun, 8:1–16.
63.
TaylorJJ, KurtHG, AnandA. 2021. Resting state functional connectivity biomarkers of treatment response in mood disorders: a review. Front Physiol, 12:347.
64.
TozziL, Goldstein-PiekarskiAN, KorgaonkarMS, et al.2020. Connectivity of the cognitive control network during response inhibition as a predictive and response biomarker in major depression: evidence from a randomized clinical trial. Biol Psychiatry, 87:462–472.
65.
Tzourio-MazoyerN, LandeauB, PapathanassiouD, et al.2002. Automated anatomical labeling of activations in SPM using a macroscopic anatomical parcellation of the MNI MRI single-subject brain. Neuroimage, 15:273–289.
66.
Van DijkKR, HeddenT, VenkataramanA, et al.2010. Intrinsic functional connectivity as a tool for human connectomics: theory, properties, and optimization. J Neurophysiol, 103:297–321.
67.
WalshND, WilliamsSC, BrammerMJ, et al.2007. A longitudinal functional magnetic resonance imaging study of verbal working memory in depression after antidepressant therapy. Biol Psychiatry, 62:1236–1243.
68.
WoolsonR.2007. Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test. Wiley Encyclopedia of Clinical Trials. pp. 1–3.
69.
YanC-G, WangX-D, ZuoX-N, et al.2016. DPABI: data processing & analysis for (resting-state) brain imaging. Neuroinformatics, 14:339–351.
70.
YuanB, SunX, XuZ, et al.2020. Influence of genetic polymorphisms in homocysteine and lipid metabolism systems on antidepressant drug response. BMC Psychiatry, 20:1–9.
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
