February 20, 2012
|
4
There’s been a lot of talk recently about how antidepressants are not particularly effective. Either most people don’t respond, or when they DO respond, it’s placebo, or the side effects are too much. None of this is wrong, though I personally do not think the current antidepressants are quite as bleak as recent coverage is implying.
What is certain is that there are people who will respond to the current antidepressants on the market, and people who will not. The question then becomes: what are the differences between these two groups of people? What makes the difference between a “responder” and a “non-responder”? And how can we determine that in order to make treatment more efficient for those who are “responders” and search for alternatives for those who are not?
This latest paper suggests that we might have an indicator in humans: BDNF.
Wolkowitz et al. “Serum BDNF levels before treatment predict SSRI response in depression” Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology & Biological Psychiatry, 2011
BDNF stands for brain derived neurotrophic factor, a growth factor that many people believe plays a role in antidepressant response. The idea stems from the hypothesis that symptoms of major depression are caused by decreases in the birth of new neurons in your brain. Long term administration of antidepressants can increase the birth of new neurons in the brain, and this is thought to help depressive symptoms. One of the ways that antidepressants are thought to work to increase cell proliferation in the brain is via increasing BDNF.
Most of the studies on BDNF and antidepressants have been done in animal models, but BDNF is detectable in humans in the blood. It is low in patients who are depressed, and can be increased by antidepressants. But could BDNF levels also help us PREDICT who could respond to antidepressants and who won’t?
To find this out, the authors took a bunch of untreated patients who had been diagnosed with depression, and a bunch of controls. They took blood levels of BDNF, and then treated the depressed patients with antidepressants (either escitalopram or sertraline). They then took their BDNF levels again.
Overall, you can see that the depressed patients (“MDD Baseline”) had lower BDNF levels than controls, and that antidepressant treatment increased their BDNF levels (“MDD End”). But then, they took apart the depressed patients, and correlated their BDNF levels at the BEGINNING (before treatment) with their depression levels at the end of treatment.
What you can see here is a correlation between the BDNF levels and a change in depression score. It turns out that those patients with the highest levels of BDNF to begin with, had the best improvements in depression score when treated with antidepressants.
And you can see here that baseline BDNF levels could predict who was a responder to the treatment and who was not. What’s particularly interesting is that the baseline BDNF levels were not correlated with the original depression score (they did not predict how depressed the patients were), they only correlated with the improvement during treatment.
The question now is WHY. It could be that having a higher baseline BDNF allows for more plasticity in neuron birth when patients are treated with antidepressants. It’s possible that people with higher BDNF levels are near a natural remission anyway. It’s possible that BDNF and antidepressants could work together, making higher BDNF levels important to the success of the drug. We don’t know any of this yet, all we know right now is that there is a correlation between antidepressant success and original BDNF levels.
Of course this is a preliminary study. It was a small sample size for humans (only 30 patients), and needs to be replicated. but the correlation is interesting, and with more studies to back it up, could be used to determine who will respond to first line treatments and who will not, as well as allowing us to study the non-responders, and find new drugs for them as well.
Wolkowitz, O., Wolf, J., Shelly, W., Rosser, R., Burke, H., Lerner, G., Reus, V., Nelson, J., Epel, E., & Mellon, S. (2011). Serum BDNF levels before treatment predict SSRI response in depression Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry, 35 (7), 1623-1630 DOI: 10.1016/j.pnpbp.2011.06.013
Add a Comment
You must log in or register as a ScientificAmerican.com member to submit a comment.
Hi,
I don’t think that I agree with the following sentence: “baseline BDNF levels could predict who was a responder to the treatment and who was not”. The two groups are largely overlapping so you could not guess in advance who will and who will not respond to the treatment.
I don’t know if there is any link but I know that the effect of repetitive TMS is shaped by BDNF and that repetitite TMS is used to treat depression. Maybe there is a link? Do you know?
JJ
Link to thisHi JJ,
As I noted, this study is preliminary and the sample size is small. Additionally, there’s a lot of variation in serum measures in humans. I would not expect total differentiation here. They got a statistically significant result, and I think with a lot more development and studies, we could develop ranges of serum BDNF that might correlate with treatment potential.
There are many links between BDNF and response to antidepressant measures, including TMS, exercise, pharmacological antidepressants, and ECS (though interestingly, the changes here are only correlated with successful treatment: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19223156). It appears that BDNF is an important growth factor target for antidepressants, though the exact role of it is still under investigation.
Link to this1. I am not specialized in neuropsychology or related areas of study.
Link to this2. In the 1980s, I experienced ~3 bouts of clinical depression. It is a bummer.
3. Since that time, my bi-polar symptoms have presented, primarily, in manic- rather than depressive-stage.
4. I have shared about my own experiences on other online venues; however, it is, I think, worth pointing out that, IF my memory serves me, medications fail to mitigate symptoms for ~30% of individuals presenting with major mood disorders. I am one of the fortunate ones responding to psychotrophic prophylactics.
5. I am sympathetic with the comments of jjdx; however, research on mood disorders has, I think, moved beyond the “fishing” stage.
6. Finally, as is probably obvious, it will be important to consider not only physiological (presuming molecular and cellular) regulation and expression, but, also, epigenetics relative to “major ‘psychological’ disorders” (schizophrenia & mood disorders).
Twitter: http://twitter.com/cbjones1943
Thank you for your post on this very interesting study, which definately deserves further investigation. I agree with jjodx’s comments about prediction. The prediction interval (which could easily have been plotted along with the regression line, in figure 2, “Baseline BDNF and HDRS change”) is very wide, so judging from the limited data BDNF would be of no use to help clinicians separate responders from none-responders before commencing treatment. (I actually made this graph, by using a web-based programme to digitize the data and run it again in R statistical software, but could not post it here). Furthermore, I can’t help but point out an obvious statistical error in the paper regarding figure 1 -which is the plot with serum-BDNF in controls, MDD-baseline and MDD-end. In the figure text it’s stated that there is a statistical significant difference (univariate ANOVA, p=0.004). This statistical procedure is clearly inappropriate because the data from groups “MDD-baseline” and “MDD-end” is paired and thus correlated (in other words violating the principle of independence). Still, this is not a key test in the paper, so the (preliminary) conclusion seems valid anyway. Some other problems about BDNF in general are that there is considerable 24hrs variation and there are about a million different ways to measure it.
Link to this