4.1 Article

Magnetic Resonance Imaging Predictors of Treatment Response in Late-Life Depression

Journal

JOURNAL OF GERIATRIC PSYCHIATRY AND NEUROLOGY
Volume 27, Issue 1, Pages 24-32

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/0891988713516541

Keywords

MR imaging; late-life depression; neuroimaging

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health [R01 MH076079, K23 MH086686]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In older adults, depression not only results in more years lived with disability than any other disease but it also carries additional risks of suicide, medical comorbidities, and family caregiving burden. Because it can take many months to identify an effective treatment regimen, it is of utmost importance to shorten the window of time and identify early on what medications and dosages will work effectively for individuals having depression. Late-life depression (LLD) has been associated with greater burden of age-related changes (eg, atrophy, white matter ischemic changes, and functional connectivity). Depression in midlife has been shown to alter affective reactivity and regulation, and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies in LLD have replicated the same abnormalities. Effective treatment can normalize these alterations. This article provides a review of the current literature using structural and functional neuroimaging to identify MRI predictors of treatment response in LLD. The majority of the literature on structural MRI has focused on the vascular depression hypothesis, and studies support the view that loss of brain volume and white matter integrity was associated with poorer treatment outcomes. Studies using fMRI have reported that lower task-based activity in the prefrontal cortex and limbic regions was associated with poorer outcome. These imaging markers may be integrated into clinical decision making to attain better treatment outcomes in the future.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available