Precision targeting of specific white matter bundles that traverse the subcallosal cingulate (SCC) has been linked to efficacy of deep brain stimulation (DBS) for treatment resistant depression (TRD). Methods to confirm optimal target engagement in this heterogenous region are now critical to establish an objective treatment protocol. As yet unexamined are the time-frequency features of the SCC evoked potential (SCC-EP), including spectral power and phase-clustering. We examined these spectral features—evoked power and phase clustering—in a sample of TRD patients (n = 8) with implanted SCC stimulators. Electroencephalogram (EEG) was recorded during wakeful rest. Location of electrical stimulation in the SCC target region was the experimental manipulation. EEG was analyzed at the surface level with an average reference for a cluster of frontal sensors and at a time window identified by prior study (50–150 ms). Morlet wavelets generated indices of evoked power and inter-trial phase clustering. Enhanced phase clustering at theta frequency (4–7 Hz) was observed in every subject and was significantly correlated with SCC-EP magnitude, but only during left SCC stimulation. Stimulation to dorsal SCC evinced stronger phase clustering than ventral SCC. There was a weak correlation between phase clustering and white matter density. An increase in evoked delta power (2–4 Hz) was also coincident with SCC-EP, but was less consistent across participants. DBS evoked time-frequency features index mm-scale changes to the location of stimulation in the SCC target region and correlate with structural characteristics implicated in treatment optimization. Results also imply a shared generative mechanism (inter-trial phase clustering) between evoked potentials evinced by electrical stimulation and evoked potentials evinced by auditory/visual stimuli and behavioral tasks. Understanding how current injection impacts downstream cortical activity is essential to building new technologies that adapt treatment parameters to individual differences in neurophysiology.

Although the fact that genetic predisposition and environmental exposures interact to shape development and function of the human brain and, ultimately, the risk of psychiatric disorders has drawn wide interest, the corresponding molecular mechanisms have not yet been elucidated. We found that a functional polymorphism altering chromatin interaction between the transcription start site and long-range enhancers in the FK506 binding protein 5 (FKBP5) gene, an important regulator of the stress hormone system, increased the risk of developing stress-related psychiatric disorders in adulthood by allele-specific, childhood trauma-dependent DNA demethylation in functional glucocorticoid response elements of FKBP5. This demethylation was linked to increased stress-dependent gene transcription followed by a long-term dysregulation of the stress hormone system and a global effect on the function of immune cells and brain areas associated with stress regulation. This identification of molecular mechanisms of genotype-directed long-term environmental reactivity will be useful for designing more effective treatment strategies for stress-related disorders.

Background: Although a number of neuroimaging biomarkers for response have been proposed, none have been tested prospectively for direct effects on treatment outcomes. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first prospective test of the clinical utility of the use of an imaging biomarker to select treatment for patients with major depressive disorder. Methods: Eligible participants (n = 60) had a primary diagnosis of major depressive disorder and were assigned to either escitalopram or cognitive behavioral therapy based on fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography activity in the right anterior insula. The overall study remission rate after 12 weeks of treatment, based on the end point Hamilton Depression Rating Scale score, was then examined for futility and benefit of the strategy. Results: Remission rates demonstrated lack of futility at the end of stage 1 (37%, 10/27), and the study proceeded to stage 2. After adjustment for the change in stage 2 sample size, the complete remission rate did not demonstrate evidence of benefit (37.7%, 95% confidence interval, 26.3%–51.4%, p = .38). However, total remission rates (complete and partial remission) did reach significance in post hoc analysis (49.1%, 95% confidence interval, 37.6%–60.7%, p = .020). Conclusions: The study shows some evidence for a role of the right anterior insula in the clinical choice of major depressive disorder monotherapy. The effect size, however, is insufficient for the use of insula activity as a sole predictive biomarker of remission. The study also demonstrates the logistical difficulties in establishing clinical utility of biomarkers.

Background: Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a highly heterogenous disease, both in terms of clinical profiles and pathobiological alterations. Recently, immunometabolic dysregulations were shown to be correlated with atypical, energy-related symptoms but less so with the Melancholic or Anxious distress symptom dimensions of depression in The Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety (NESDA) study. In this study, we aimed to replicate these immunometabolic associations and to characterize the metabolomic correlates of each of the three MDD dimensions. Methods: Using three clinical rating scales, Melancholic, and Anxious distress, and Immunometabolic (IMD) dimensions were characterized in 158 patients who participated in the Predictors of Remission to Individual and Combined Treatments (PReDICT) study and from whom plasma and serum samples were available. The NESDA-defined inflammatory index, a composite measure of interleukin-6 and C-reactive protein, was measured from pre-treatment plasma samples and a metabolomic profile was defined using serum samples analyzed on three metabolomics platforms targeting fatty acids and complex lipids, amino acids, acylcarnitines, and gut microbiome-derived metabolites among other metabolites of central metabolism. Results: The IMD clinical dimension and the inflammatory index were positively correlated (r = 0.19, p = 0.019) after controlling for age, sex, and body mass index, whereas the Melancholic and Anxious distress dimensions were not, replicating the previous NESDA findings. The three symptom dimensions had distinct metabolomic signatures using both univariate and set enrichment statistics. IMD severity correlated mainly with gut-derived metabolites and a few acylcarnitines and long chain saturated free fatty acids. Melancholia severity was significantly correlated with several phosphatidylcholines, primarily the ether-linked variety, lysophosphatidylcholines, as well as several amino acids. Anxious distress severity correlated with several medium and long chain free fatty acids, both saturated and polyunsaturated ones, sphingomyelins, as well as several amino acids and bile acids. Conclusion: The IMD dimension of depression appears reliably associated with markers of inflammation. Metabolomics provides powerful tools to inform about depression heterogeneity and molecular mechanisms related to clinical dimensions in MDD, which include a link to gut microbiome and lipids implicated in membrane structure and function.

Background: Individuals experiencing socioeconomic deprivation consistently demonstrate poorer physical and mental health. Income alone is inadequate as a measure of socioeconomic status (SES); a better measure for assessing the deprivation status of individuals is needed. Methods: The New Zealand Index of Socioeconomic Deprivation for Individuals, a validated, eight-item measure of deprivation, was modified to create the United States Index of Socioeconomic Deprivation for Individuals (USiDep). The questionnaire was administered to patients with major depressive disorder participating in two clinical trials. Spearman's correlation coefficients evaluated associations between USiDep scores with income and other measures associated with deprivation. Results: The USiDep was completed by 118 participants, demonstrating adequate internal consistency (Crohnbach's alpha = 0.766) and strong item-total correlations. USiDep scores were moderately correlated with past-year personal income (Spearman's rho = -0.362, p <. 001) and several other measures related to deprivation, including body mass index, level of education, quality of life, severity of childhood traumatic events, self-reported physical health, and negative life events. Patients scoring 5 on the USiDep (the highest possible score, indicating greater deprivation) had significantly lower rates of remission after 12 weeks of treatment than those scoring ≤ 4 (1/12, 8.3% vs 40/98, 40.8%, respectively, p = .03), whereas the lowest income group showed no significant associations with outcomes. Conclusion: The USiDep is a valid, brief questionnaire for assessing SES that has utility for clinical research and may serve as a predictor of treatment outcomes in clinical trials. Validation of the USiDep in healthy controls and other medically and psychiatrically ill populations is warranted.

Background: Traditional rating scales for depression rely heavily on patient self-report, and lack detailed measurement of non-verbal behavior. However, there is evidence that depression is associated with distinct non-verbal behaviors, assessment of which may provide useful information about recovery. This study examines non-verbal behavior in a sample of patients receiving Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS) treatment of depression, with the purpose to investigate the relationship between non-verbal behaviors and reported symptom severity. Methods: Videotaped clinical interviews of twelve patients participating in a study of DBS for treatment-resistant depression were analyzed at three time points (before treatment and after 3 months and 6 months of treatment), using an ethogram to assess the frequencies of 42 non-verbal behaviors. The Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) and Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS-17) were also collected at all time points. Results: Factor analysis grouped non-verbal behaviors into three factors: react, engage/fidget, and disengage. Two-way repeated measures ANOVA showed that scores on the three factors change differently from each other over time. Mixed effects modelling assessed the relationship between BDI score and frequency of non-verbal behaviors, and provided evidence that the frequency of behaviors related to reactivity and engagement increase as BDI score decreases. Limitations: This study assesses a narrow sample of patients with a distinct clinical profile at limited time points. Conclusions: Non-verbal behavior provides information about clinical states and may be reliably quantified using ethograms. Non-verbal behavior may provide distinct information compared to self-report.

The deep brain stimulation (DBS) Think Tank X was held on August 17–19, 2022 in Orlando FL. The session organizers and moderators were all women with the theme women in neuromodulation. Dr. Helen Mayberg from Mt. Sinai, NY was the keynote speaker. She discussed milestones and her experiences in developing depression DBS. The DBS Think Tank was founded in 2012 and provides an open platform where clinicians, engineers and researchers (from industry and academia) can freely discuss current and emerging DBS technologies as well as the logistical and ethical issues facing the field. The consensus among the DBS Think Tank X speakers was that DBS has continued to expand in scope however several indications have reached the “trough of disillusionment.” DBS for depression was considered as “re-emerging” and approaching a slope of enlightenment. DBS for depression will soon re-enter clinical trials. The group estimated that globally more than 244,000 DBS devices have been implanted for neurological and neuropsychiatric disorders. This year’s meeting was focused on advances in the following areas: neuromodulation in Europe, Asia, and Australia; cutting-edge technologies, closed loop DBS, DBS tele-health, neuroethics, lesion therapy, interventional psychiatry, and adaptive DBS.

Background A reliable and meaningful quantitative index of success is paramount in the trial of any new treatment. However, existing methods for defining response and remission for treatments tested for psychiatric disorders are limited in that they often minimize the variance in change over time among individual patients and generally use arbitrarily chosen levels of functioning at specified times during treatment. Purpose To suggest and determine the properties of an alternative measure of treatment success, the Illness Density Index (IDI), that may be more sensitive to fluctuations in symptoms over the course of treatment compared to existing measures. Methods We examined data from 64 depressed patients with multiple assessments of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) over 12 weeks of randomized treatment in order to compare and contrast varying numerical definitions of response and remission, including percent change and linear slope over time. Results Examination of the indices comparing the within-sample rank of individual patients revealed that these indices agree in cases where patients have little or no response as well as clear and sustained response, while they differ in patients who have a slow (or late) response as well as relapse during the treatment course. Limitations The measure may not be useful for all types of studies, especially short-term treatment trials. Conclusions The IDI is highly correlated with both categorical (e.g., remission) and continuous (e.g., percent change) definitions of treatment success. Furthermore, it differentiates certain trajectories of change that current definitions do not. Thus, the proposed index may be a valuable addition to current measures of efficacy, especially when trying to identify biological substrates of illness or predictors of long-term outcome.

Background: Efforts to develop neuroimaging-based biomarkers in major depressive disorder (MDD), at the individual level, have been limited to date. As diagnostic criteria are currently symptom-based, MDD is conceptualized as a disorder rather than a disease with a known etiology; further, neural measures are often confounded by medication status and heterogeneous symptom states. Methods: We describe a consortium to quantify neuroanatomical and neurofunctional heterogeneity via the dimensions of novel multivariate coordinate system (COORDINATE-MDD). Utilizing imaging harmonization and machine learning methods in a large cohort of medication-free, deeply phenotyped MDD participants, patterns of brain alteration are defined in replicable and neurobiologically-based dimensions and offer the potential to predict treatment response at the individual level. International datasets are being shared from multi-ethnic community populations, first episode and recurrent MDD, which are medication-free, in a current depressive episode with prospective longitudinal treatment outcomes and in remission. Neuroimaging data consist of de-identified, individual, structural MRI and resting-state functional MRI with additional positron emission tomography (PET) data at specific sites. State-of-the-art analytic methods include automated image processing for extraction of anatomical and functional imaging variables, statistical harmonization of imaging variables to account for site and scanner variations, and semi-supervised machine learning methods that identify dominant patterns associated with MDD from neural structure and function in healthy participants. Results: We are applying an iterative process by defining the neural dimensions that characterise deeply phenotyped samples and then testing the dimensions in novel samples to assess specificity and reliability. Crucially, we aim to use machine learning methods to identify novel predictors of treatment response based on prospective longitudinal treatment outcome data, and we can externally validate the dimensions in fully independent sites. Conclusion: We describe the consortium, imaging protocols and analytics using preliminary results. Our findings thus far demonstrate how datasets across many sites can be harmonized and constructively pooled to enable execution of this large-scale project.

DBS Think Tank IX was held on August 25–27, 2021 in Orlando FL with US based participants largely in person and overseas participants joining by video conferencing technology. The DBS Think Tank was founded in 2012 and provides an open platform where clinicians, engineers and researchers (from industry and academia) can freely discuss current and emerging deep brain stimulation (DBS) technologies as well as the logistical and ethical issues facing the field. The consensus among the DBS Think Tank IX speakers was that DBS expanded in its scope and has been applied to multiple brain disorders in an effort to modulate neural circuitry. After collectively sharing our experiences, it was estimated that globally more than 230,000 DBS devices have been implanted for neurological and neuropsychiatric disorders. As such, this year’s meeting was focused on advances in the following areas: neuromodulation in Europe, Asia and Australia; cutting-edge technologies, neuroethics, interventional psychiatry, adaptive DBS, neuromodulation for pain, network neuromodulation for epilepsy and neuromodulation for traumatic brain injury.