Major depressive disorder is among the most disabling illnesses and, despite best practices with medication and psychotherapy, many patients remain ill even after several treatment trials. For many of these patients with treatment-resistant or pharmacoresistant depression, treatment with neuromodulation offers an alternative. Options range from systems that are implanted to others that are entirely noninvasive. This review surveys recent literature to update readers on 3 particular interventions: deep brain stimulation, transcranial magnetic stimulation, and trigeminal nerve stimulation. Additional comparative research is needed to delineate the relative advantages of these treatments, and how best to match individual patients to neuromodulation intervention.

Management of Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) might be improved by a biomarker to predict whether a selected medication is likely to lead to remission. We previously reported on a quantitative electroencephalogram-based biomarker, the Antidepressant Treatment Response (ATR) index, that integrated recordings at baseline and after one week of treatment. The present study prospectively tested whether treatment directed by the biomarker increased the likelihood of remission; we hypothesized that continued treatment with a drug predicted to lead to remission (i.e., high ATR values) would be associated with better outcomes than if the drug was predicted not to lead to remission (i.e., low ATR values). We enrolled 180 adult outpatients with unipolar MDD from the community. After one week of escitalopram treatment to determine the biomarker, stratified randomization (high vs. low ATR) was used to assign subjects to either continued escitalopram or a switch to bupropion as a blinded control condition, for seven additional weeks. For the 73 evaluable subjects assigned to continued escitalopram treatment, the remission rate was significantly higher for those in whom ATR had predicted remission versus non-remission (60.4% vs. 30.0%, respectively, p = 0.01). Accuracy was enhanced by combining 1-week depressive symptom change with ATR (68.6% vs 28.9%). This prospective validation study supports further development of the ATR biomarker, alone or together with early symptom change, to improve care by identifying individuals unlikely to remit with their current treatment, and support the decision to change treatment after one week rather than after failing a full, prolonged course of medication.

Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) is a lifelong and recurrent illness, such that many individuals require multiple courses of antidepressant medication treatment. While some patients respond completely to each course of treatment, many do not, and with each unsuccessful antidepressant trial the likelihood that a patient will respond decreases. This raises the possibility that neurophysiologic response in subsequent antidepressant treatment may be influenced by learning processes including sensitization, habituation, and/or classical conditioning. Classical conditioning would entail the association of cues such as pill-taking (conditioned stimuli; CS) with the effects of active medication (unconditioned stimulus; US), such that later presentation of the CS alone would come to elicit a conditioned response (CR). Such effects could be revealed by blinded administration of placebo following a period of treatment with active medication. Habituation effects (tolerance), or sensitization effects (increased response), which require only repeated exposure to a stimulus, might be evidenced after repeated courses of antidepressant treatment. Knowledge of how learning processes impact neurophysiologic response to successive courses of antidepressant treatment would have relevance for clinical populations. Specific hypotheses, however, may be tested in healthy non-clinical samples to avoid potential confounding factors related to severity or chronicity of illness. Learning theories would suggest two hypotheses: (1) neurophysiologic response to placebo will differ between subjects who were previously treated with antidepressant treatment as compared to placebo (classical conditioning hypothesis); and (2) neurophysiologic response to an initial course of antidepressant treatment will differ from response to a repeated course of antidepressant treatment. Pilot data addressed these hypotheses in healthy never-depressed women who had previously received four weeks of venlafaxine IR, 150 mg (antidepressant-experienced subjects; n=2) or matching placebo (antidepressant-naive subjects; n=4) under double-blind conditions. Six-and-a-half years later, we treated these six women with placebo for one week, followed by four weeks of double-blind treatment with venlafaxine IR, 150 mg. Brain functional changes over the course of treatment were assessed using quantitative electroencephalography (qEEG) to compare prefrontal neurophysiologic responses between subjects who had, versus had not, previously been exposed to venlafaxine. Antidepressant-experienced versus antidepressant-naive subjects showed greater decreases in prefrontal cordance (PFC) during venlafaxine administration (sensitization hypothesis) but did not show significantly different PFC changes during treatment with placebo in this small pilot sample (classical conditioning hypothesis). Data suggest that brief treatment with antidepressant medication may have an enduring impact on neurophysiologic responses to a subsequent course of antidepressant treatment. Hypotheses should be tested in larger samples.

Background

Pill-taking, expectations and therapeutic alliance may account for much of the benefit of medication and placebo treatment for major depressive disorder (MDD). Aims To examine the effects of medication, placebo and supportive care on treatment outcome, and the relationships of expectations and therapeutic alliance to improvement.

Method

A total of 88 participants were randomised to 8 weeks of treatment with supportive care alone or combined with double-blind treatment with placebo or antidepressant medication. Expectations of medication effectiveness, general treatment effectiveness and therapeutic alliance were measured (trial registration at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00200902).

Results

Medication or placebo plus supportive care were not significantly different but had significantly better outcome than supportive care alone. Therapeutic alliance predicted response to medication and placebo; expectations of medication effectiveness at enrolment predicted only placebo response.

Conclusions

Pill treatment yielded better outcome than supportive care alone. Medication expectations uniquely predicted placebo treatment outcome and were formed by time of enrolment, suggesting that they were shaped by prior experiences outside the clinical trial.

Brain oscillatory activity from the midline prefrontal region has been shown to reflect brain dysfunction in subjects with Major Depressive Disorder (MDD). It is not known, however, whether electrodes from this area provide unique information about brain function in MDD. We examined a set of midline sites and two other prefrontal locations for detecting cerebral activity differences between subjects with MDD and healthy controls. Resting awake quantitative EEG (qEEG) data were recorded from 168 subjects: 47 never-depressed adults and 121 with a current major depressive episode. Individual midline electrodes (Fpz, Fz, Cz, Pz, and Oz) and prefrontal electrodes outside the hairline (Fp1, Fp2) were examined with absolute and relative power and cordance in the theta band. We found that MDD subjects exhibited higher values of cordance (p = 0.0066) at Fpz than controls; no significant differences were found at other locations, and power measures showed trend-level differences. Depressed adults showed higher midline cordance than did never-depressed subjects at the most-anterior midline channel. Salient abnormalities in MDD may be detectable by focusing on the prefrontal midline region, and EEG metrics from focused electrode arrays may offer clinical practicality for clinical monitoring.