Background: Quantitative electroencephalography (qEEG) data can facilitate the monitoring of treatment progress and the evaluation of therapeutic responses in patients with Major Depressive Disorder (MDD). This study aims to compare the qEEG data of MDD patients and healthy controls, both before and after treatment, to assess the effect of treatment response on neural activity. Methods: A total of 72 patients, aged 18–60, who had not used any psychopharmacological medication for at least two weeks, were included in the study. Based on a minimum 50% reduction in scores on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS-17) and Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HARS), the patients were divided into two groups: responders (n = 51) and non-responders (n = 21). qEEG data were recorded before and after treatment. Results: Responders exhibited a significant shift in cortical activity—particularly in theta, alpha, and high-beta power—toward patterns resembling those observed in the healthy control group (improvement range: 15% to 67%). In contrast, non-responders showed minimal changes in cortical activity (improvement range: 38% to 46%). These findings suggest that while qEEG spectral data reflect marked neural changes in responders, no significant alterations occur in non-responders. Conclusion: The use of qEEG spectral analysis to monitor MDD patients provides valuable insights into treatment efficacy. The distinct patterns of cortical activity observed across most brain regions before treatment, compared to healthy individuals, highlight the potential of qEEG to predict treatment outcomes.
LimGYTamWWLuYHoCSZhangMWHoRC. Prevalence of depression in the community from 30 countries between 1994 and 2014. Sci Rep. 2018;8(1):2861. doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-21243-x
2.
LiuQHeHYangJFengXZhaoFLyuJ. Changes in the global burden of depression from 1990 to 2017: Findings from the global burden of disease study. J Psychiatr Res.2020;126(1):134-140. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2019.08.002
3.
GreenbergPEFournierAASisitskyTPikeCTKesslerRC. The economic burden of adults with major depressive disorder in the United States (2005 and 2010). J Clin Psychiatry. 2015;76(2):155-162. doi:https://doi.org/10.4088/JCP.14m09298
4.
SobockiPJönssonBAngstJRehnbergC. Cost of depression in Europe. J Ment Health Policy Econ. 2006;9(2):87-98.
5.
AndersonIMNuttDJDeakinJF. Evidence-based guidelines for treating depressive disorders with antidepressants: A revision of the 1993 British association for psychopharmacology guidelines. British association for psychopharmacology. J Psychopharmacol. 2000;14(1):3-20. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/026988110001400101
6.
KennedySHLamRWCohenNLRavindranAV, CANMAT Depression Work Group. Clinical guidelines for the treatment of depressive disorders. IV. Medications and other biological treatments. Can J Psychiatry. 2001;46(Suppl 1):38S-58S.
7.
TrivediMHRushAJWisniewskiSR, et al.Evaluation of outcomes with citalopram for depression using measurement-based care in STAR*D: Implications for clinical practice. Am J Psychiatry. 2006;163(1):28-40. doi:https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.163.1.28
8.
BauerMWhybrowPCAngstJVersianiMMöllerHJ, World Federation of Societies Biological Psychiatry Task Force on Treatment Guidelines for Unipolar Depressive Disorders. World federation of societies of biological psychiatry (WFSBP) guidelines for biological treatment of unipolar depressive disorders, part 1: Acute and continuation treatment of major depressive disorder. World J Biol Psychiatry. 2002;3(1):5-43. doi:https://doi.org/10.3109/15622970209150599
9.
SilvermanJJGalanterMJackson-TricheM, et al.The American psychiatric association practice guidelines for the psychiatric evaluation of adults. Am J Psychiatry. 2015;172(8):798-802. doi:https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2015.1720501
10.
SimmatisLRussoEEGeraciJHarmsenIESamuelN. Technical and clinical considerations for electroencephalography-based biomarkers for major depressive disorder. npj Mental Health Res. 2023;2(1):18. doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/s44184-023-00038-7
11.
MeyerJHGinovartNBoovariwalaA, et al.Elevated monoamine oxidase A levels in the brain: An explanation for the monoamine imbalance of Major depression. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2006;63(11):1209. doi:https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.63.11.1209
12.
KaiserRHAndrews-HannaJRWagerTDPizzagalliDA. Large-scale network dysfunction in major depressive disorder: A meta-analysis of resting-state functional connectivity. JAMA Psychiatry. 2015;72(6):603-611. doi:https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2015.0071
13.
HoCSHLimLJHLimAQ, et al.Diagnostic and predictive applications of functional near-infrared spectroscopy for major depressive disorder: A systematic review. Front Psychiatry. 2020;11(1):378. doi:https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2020.00378
14.
JiangHTianSBiKLuQYaoZ. Hyperactive frontolimbic and frontocentral resting-state gamma connectivity in major depressive disorder. J Affect Disord. 2019;257(1):74-82. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2019.06.066
15.
OlbrichSArnsM. EEG Biomarkers in major depressive disorder: Discriminative power and prediction of treatment response. Int Rev Psychiatry.2013;25(5):604-618. doi:https://doi.org/10.3109/09540261.2013.816269
16.
McLoughlinGMakeigSTsuangMT. In search of biomarkers in psychiatry: EEG-based measures of brain function. Am J Med Genet B Neuropsychiatr Genet. 2014;165B(2):111-121. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/ajmg.b.32208
17.
JaworskaNBlierPFuseeWKnottV. Alpha power, alpha asymmetry and anterior cingulate cortex activity in depressed males and females. J Psychiatr Res.2012;46(11):1483-1491. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2012.08.003
18.
KorbASCookIAHunterAMLeuchterAF. Brain electrical source differences between depressed subjects and healthy controls. Brain Topogr. 2008;21(2):138-146. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10548-008-0070-5
19.
DasJYadavS. Resting state quantitative electroencephalogram power Spectra in patients with depressive disorder as compared to normal controls: An observational study. Indian J Psychol Med.2020;42(1):30. doi:https://doi.org/10.4103/IJPSYM.IJPSYM_568_17
20.
Machado-VieiraRYuanPBrutscheN, et al.Brain-derived neurotrophic factor and initial antidepressant response to an N-methyl-D-aspartate antagonist. J Clin Psychiatry. 2009;70(12):1662. doi:https://doi.org/10.4088/JCP.08m04659
21.
RajpurkarPYangJDassN, et al.Evaluation of a machine learning model based on pretreatment symptoms and electroencephalographic features to predict outcomes of antidepressant treatment in adults with depression. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(6):e206653. doi:https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.6653
TenkeCEKayserJMannaCG, et al.Current source density measures of EEG alpha predict antidepressant treatment response. Biol Psychiatry. 2011;70(4):388-394. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2011.02.016
24.
JaworskaNWangHSmithDMBlierPKnottVProtznerAB. Pre-treatment EEG signal variability is associated with treatment success in depression. Neuroimage Clin. 2018;17(1):368-377. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nicl.2017.10.035
25.
KorbASHunterAMCookIALeuchterAF. Rostral anterior cingulate cortex theta current density and response to antidepressants and placebo in major depression. Clin Neurophysiol. 2009;120(7):1313-1319. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2009.05.008
26.
American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR). Vol 1. 4th ed. American Psychiatric Association; 2000. doi:https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890423349
27.
American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: DSM-5. 5th ed. American Psychiatric Association; 2013.
MaierWBullerRPhilippMHeuserI. The Hamilton anxiety scale: Reliability, validity and sensitivity to change in anxiety and depressive disorders. J Affect Disord.1988;14(1):61-68. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-0327(88)90072-9
ClementsGMBowieDCGyurkovicsMLowKAFabianiMGrattonG. Spontaneous alpha and theta oscillations are related to complementary aspects of cognitive control in younger and older adults. Front Hum Neurosci. 2021;15(1):621620. doi:https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2021.621620
36.
FodorZHorváthAHidasiZGouwAAStamCJCsuklyG. EEG alpha and beta band functional connectivity and network structure mark hub overload in mild cognitive impairment during memory maintenance. Front Aging Neurosci. 2021;13(1):680200. doi:https://doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2021.680200
37.
WangSYLinIMFanSY, et al.The effects of alpha asymmetry and high-beta down-training neurofeedback for patients with the major depressive disorder and anxiety symptoms. J Affect Disord. 2019;257(1):287-296. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2019.07.026
38.
BruderGEStewartJWTenkeCE, et al.Electroencephalographic and perceptual asymmetry differences between responders and nonresponders to an SSRI antidepressant. Biol Psychiatry. 2001;49(5):416-425. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/s0006-3223(00)01016-7
39.
KnottVJTelnerJILapierreYDBrowneMHornER. Quantitative EEG in the prediction of antidepressant response to imipramine. J Affect Disord. 1996;39(3):175-184. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-0327(96)00003-1
40.
UlrichGRenfordtEZellerGFrickK. Interrelation between changes in the EEG and psychopathology under pharmacotherapy for endogenous depression. A contribution to the predictor question. Pharmacopsychiatry. 1984;17(6):178-183. doi:https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2007-1017433
41.
BruderGESedorukJPStewartJWMcGrathPJQuitkinFMTenkeCE. Electroencephalographic alpha measures predict therapeutic response to a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor antidepressant: Pre- and post-treatment findings. Biol Psychiatry. 2008;63(12):1171-1177. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2007.10.009
42.
KnottVMahoneyCKennedySEvansK. EEG Correlates of acute and chronic paroxetine treatment in depression. J Affect Disord. 2002;69(1-3):241-249. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/s0165-0327(01)00308-1
43.
WuWZhangYJiangJ, et al.An electroencephalographic signature predicts antidepressant response in major depression. Nat Biotechnol. 2020;38(4):439-447. doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-019-0397-3
Supplementary Material
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.
