Prospective testing of a neurophysiologic biomarker for treatment decisions in major depressive disorder: The PRISE-MD trial

Using deep learning and pretreatment EEG to predict response to sertraline, bupropion, and placebo

OBJECTIVE

Predicting an individual's response to antidepressant medication remains one of the most challenging tasks in the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD). Our objective was to use the large EMBARC study database to develop an electroencephalography (EEG)-based method to predict response to antidepressant treatment.

METHODS

Pre-treatment EEG data were collected from study participants treated with either sertraline (N = 105), placebo (N = 119), or bupropion (N = 35). After preprocessing, the robust exact low-resolution electromagnetic tomography (ReLORETA) brain source localization method was used to reconstruct the source signals in 54 brain regions. Connectivity between regions was determined using symbolic transfer entropy (STE). A convolutional neural network (CNN) classified participants as responders or non-responders to each treatment.

RESULTS

Classification accuracy was 91.0%, 95.4%, and 86.8% for sertraline, placebo, and bupropion, respectively. The most highly predictive features were connectivity between i) the anterior cingulate cortex and superior parietal lobule (alpha frequency), ii) the anterior cingulate cortex and orbitofrontal area (beta frequency), and iii) the orbitofrontal area and anterior cingulate cortex (gamma frequency).

CONCLUSION

CNN analysis of EEG connectivity may accurately predict response to sertraline, bupropion, and placebo.

SIGNIFICANCE

The suggested method may offer clinicians an accessible and cost-effective tool for speedy treatment and helps pharmaceutical firms to test new antidepressants efficiently.

Computational approaches to treatment response prediction in major depression using brain activity and behavioral data: A systematic review

Major depressive disorder is a heterogeneous diagnostic category with multiple available treatments. With the goal of optimizing treatment selection, researchers are developing computational models that attempt to predict treatment response based on various pretreatment measures. In this paper, we review studies that use brain activity data to predict treatment response. Our aim is to highlight and clarify important methodological differences between various studies that relate to the incorporation of domain knowledge, specifically within two approaches delineated as data-driven and theory-driven. We argue that theory-driven generative modeling, which explicitly models information processing in the brain and thus can capture disease mechanisms, is a promising emerging approach that is only beginning to be utilized in treatment response prediction. The predictors extracted via such models could improve interpretability, which is critical for clinical decision-making. We also identify several methodological limitations across the reviewed studies and provide suggestions for addressing them. Namely, we consider problems with dichotomizing treatment outcomes, the importance of investigating more than one treatment in a given study for differential treatment response predictions, the need for a patient-centered approach for defining treatment outcomes, and finally, the use of internal and external validation methods for improving model generalizability.

Predicting treatment response using EEG in major depressive disorder: A machine-learning meta-analysis

Selecting a course of treatment in psychiatry remains a trial-and-error process, and this long-standing clinical challenge has prompted an increased focus on predictive models of treatment response using machine learning techniques. Electroencephalography (EEG) represents a cost-effective and scalable potential measure to predict treatment response to major depressive disorder. We performed separate meta-analyses to determine the ability of models to distinguish between responders and non-responders using EEG across treatments, as well as a performed subgroup analysis of response to transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), and antidepressants (Registration Number: CRD42021257477) in Major Depressive Disorder by searching PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science for articles published between January 1960 and February 2022. We included 15 studies that predicted treatment responses among patients with major depressive disorder using machine-learning techniques. Within a random-effects model with a restricted maximum likelihood estimator comprising 758 patients, the pooled accuracy across studies was 83.93% (95% CI: 78.90-89.29), with an Area-Under-the-Curve (AUC) of 0.850 (95% CI: 0.747-0.890), and partial AUC of 0.779. The average sensitivity and specificity across models were 77.96% (95% CI: 60.05-88.70), and 84.60% (95% CI: 67.89-92.39), respectively. In a subgroup analysis, greater performance was observed in predicting response to rTMS (Pooled accuracy: 85.70% (95% CI: 77.45-94.83), Area-Under-the-Curve (AUC): 0.928, partial AUC: 0.844), relative to antidepressants (Pooled accuracy: 81.41% (95% CI: 77.45-94.83, AUC: 0.895, pAUC: 0.821). Furthermore, across all meta-analyses, the specificity (true negatives) of EEG models was greater than the sensitivity (true positives), suggesting that EEG models thus far better identify non-responders than responders to treatment in MDD. Studies varied widely in important features across models, although relevant features included absolute and relative power in frontal and temporal electrodes, measures of connectivity, and asymmetry across hemispheres. Predictive models of treatment response using EEG hold promise in major depressive disorder, although there is a need for prospective model validation in independent datasets, and a greater emphasis on replicating physiological markers. Crucially, standardization in cut-off values and clinical scales for defining clinical response and non-response will aid in the reproducibility of findings and the clinical utility of predictive models. Furthermore, several models thus far have used data from open-label trials with small sample sizes and evaluated performance in the absence of training and testing sets, which increases the risk of statistical overfitting. Large consortium studies are required to establish predictive signatures of treatment response using EEG, and better elucidate the replicability of specific markers. Additionally, it is speculated that greater performance was observed in rTMS models, since EEG is assessing neural networks more likely to be directly targeted by rTMS, comprising electrical activity primarily near the surface of the cortex. Prospectively, there is a need for models that examine the comparative effectiveness of multiple treatments across the same patients. However, this will require a thoughtful consideration towards cumulative treatment effects, and whether washout periods between treatments should be utilised. Regardless, longitudinal cross-over trials comparing multiple treatments across the same group of patients will be an important prerequisite step to both facilitate precision psychiatry and identify generalizable physiological predictors of response between and across treatment options.

Special Report on the Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Clinical EEG and Research and Consensus Recommendations for the Safe Use of EEG

INTRODUCTION

The global COVID-19 pandemic has affected the economy, daily life, and mental/physical health. The latter includes the use of electroencephalography (EEG) in clinical practice and research. We report a survey of the impact of COVID-19 on the use of clinical EEG in practice and research in several countries, and the recommendations of an international panel of experts for the safe application of EEG during and after this pandemic.

METHODS

Fifteen clinicians from 8 different countries and 25 researchers from 13 different countries reported the impact of COVID-19 on their EEG activities, the procedures implemented in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and precautions planned or already implemented during the reopening of EEG activities.

RESULTS

Of the 15 clinical centers responding, 11 reported a total stoppage of all EEG activities, while 4 reduced the number of tests per day. In research settings, all 25 laboratories reported a complete stoppage of activity, with 7 laboratories reopening to some extent since initial closure. In both settings, recommended precautions for restarting or continuing EEG recording included strict hygienic rules, social distance, and assessment for infection symptoms among staff and patients/participants.

CONCLUSIONS

The COVID-19 pandemic interfered with the use of EEG recordings in clinical practice and even more in clinical research. We suggest updated best practices to allow safe EEG recordings in both research and clinical settings. The continued use of EEG is important in those with psychiatric diseases, particularly in times of social alarm such as the COVID-19 pandemic.