4.7 Article

Quantitative electroencephalographic biomarker of pharmacological treatment response in patients with anxiety disorder: a retrospective study

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 13, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-30994-1

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study investigated the effectiveness of a qEEG biomarker in predicting the response to pharmacological treatment in patients with anxiety disorder. The results showed that patients with a lower TBR and higher beta and high-beta waves in T3 and T4 were more likely to respond to medication.
This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of a quantitative electroencephalography (qEEG) biomarker in predicting the response to pharmacological treatment in patients with anxiety disorder. A total of 86 patients were diagnosed with anxiety disorder according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 5th edition, and subsequently treated with antidepressants. After 8-12 weeks, the participants were divided into treatment-resistant (TRS) and treatment-response (TRP) groups based on their Clinical Global Impressions-Severity (CGI-S) scores. We obtained the absolute-EEG measurements for 19-channels and analyzed qEEG findings according to the frequency range: delta, theta, alpha, and beta. The beta-wave was subdivided into low-beta, beta, and high-beta waves. The theta-beta ratio (TBR) was calculated, and an analysis of covariance was performed. Of the 86 patients with anxiety disorder, 56 patients (65%) were classified in the TRS group. The TRS and TRP groups did not differ in terms of age, sex, or medication-dosage. However, the baseline CGI-S was higher in the TRP group. After calibration by covariates, the TRP group showed higher beta-waves in T3 and T4, and a lower TBR, especially in T3 and T4, than the TRS group. These results indicate that patients with a lower TBR and higher beta and high-beta waves in T3 and T4 are more likely to respond to medication.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available