4.5 Article

Frontal EEG predictors of treatment outcome in major depressive disorder

Journal

EUROPEAN NEUROPSYCHOPHARMACOLOGY
Volume 19, Issue 11, Pages 772-777

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.euroneuro.2009.06.001

Keywords

Major depressive disorder; Antidepressants; Treatment response; Quantitative electroencephalography (QEEG)

Funding

  1. Aspect Medical Systems

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To investigate the rote of frontal EEG as predictor of clinical response to SSRIs or venlafaxine in major depressive disorder (MDD). Method: 82 subjects (age 35.9 +/- 13.0; 47.6% female) meeting DSM-IV criteria for MDD entered an 8-week prospective treatment with SSRIs or venlafaxine. At baseline and week 1 we recorded serial, 4-channel EEGs (F7-Fpz, F8-Fpz, A1-Fpz, A2-Fpz). We evaluated prospectively the relative theta power as predictor of treatment outcome. We also developed an Antidepressant Treatment Response (ATR) index using EEG parameters assessed at baseline and week 1. Results: 45 subjects (54.9%) responded to treatment (HAM-D-17 reduction 50%). At baseline, frontal relative theta power (i.e., 4-8 Hz power/2-20 Hz power) was significantly (p=0.017) tower (21%) in treatment responders than in non-responders (24%). Baseline relative theta power predicted treatment response with 63% accuracy [64% sensitivity, 62% specificity, 66% area under the receiver operator curve (AUROC) (p=0.014)]. Relative theta power at week 1 predicted treatment response with 60% accuracy [62% sensitivity, 57% specificity, 61% AUROC (p=0.089)]. ATR predicted response with 70% accuracy [82% sensitivity, 54% specificity, 72% AURCC (p=0.001)]. Conclusion: Using automated analysis of frontal EEG collected during the first week of antidepressant treatment it may be possible to facilitate prediction of SSRI or venlafaxine efficacy in MDD. (C) 2009 Elsevier B.V. and ECNR All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available