Algorithm-informed treatment from EEG patterns improves outcomes for patients with major depressive disorder.

IF 1.1 Q4 PRIMARY HEALTH CARE Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care Pub Date : 2024-12-01 Epub Date: 2024-12-09 DOI:10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_630_24
Ramon Solhkhah, Justin Feintuch, Mabel Vasquez, Eamon S Thomasson, Vijay Halari, Kathleen Palmer, Morgan R Peltier
{"title":"Algorithm-informed treatment from EEG patterns improves outcomes for patients with major depressive disorder.","authors":"Ramon Solhkhah, Justin Feintuch, Mabel Vasquez, Eamon S Thomasson, Vijay Halari, Kathleen Palmer, Morgan R Peltier","doi":"10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_630_24","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Selecting the right medication for major depressive disorder (MDD) is challenging, and patients are often on several medications before an effective one is found. Using patient EEG patterns with computer models to select medications is a potential solution, however, it is not widely performed. Therefore, we evaluated a commercially available EEG data analysis system to help guide medication selection in a clinical setting.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients with MDD were recruited, and their physicians used their own judgment to select medications (Control; n = 115) or relied on computer-guided selection (PEER n = 165) of medications. Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology (QIDS SR-16) scores were obtained from patients, before the start of the study (day 0) and again at ~90 and ~180 d. Patients in the PEER arm were classified into one of 4 groups depending on if the report was followed throughout (RF/RF), the first 90 days only (RF/RNF), the second 90 days only (RNF/RF), or not at all (RNF/RNF). Outcomes were then compared with controls whose physician performed the EEG and submitted data but did not receive the PEER report.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Patients in the controls, RF/RF and RNF/RNF groups had fewer depressive symptoms at 90 and 180 days, but the response was significantly stronger for patients in the RF/RF group. Lower rates of suicidal ideation were also noted in the RF/RF group than the control group at 90 and 180 days of treatment.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Computational analysis of EEG patterns may augment physicians' skills at selecting medications for the patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":15856,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care","volume":"13 12","pages":"5730-5738"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11709042/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_630_24","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/12/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PRIMARY HEALTH CARE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Selecting the right medication for major depressive disorder (MDD) is challenging, and patients are often on several medications before an effective one is found. Using patient EEG patterns with computer models to select medications is a potential solution, however, it is not widely performed. Therefore, we evaluated a commercially available EEG data analysis system to help guide medication selection in a clinical setting.

Methods: Patients with MDD were recruited, and their physicians used their own judgment to select medications (Control; n = 115) or relied on computer-guided selection (PEER n = 165) of medications. Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology (QIDS SR-16) scores were obtained from patients, before the start of the study (day 0) and again at ~90 and ~180 d. Patients in the PEER arm were classified into one of 4 groups depending on if the report was followed throughout (RF/RF), the first 90 days only (RF/RNF), the second 90 days only (RNF/RF), or not at all (RNF/RNF). Outcomes were then compared with controls whose physician performed the EEG and submitted data but did not receive the PEER report.

Results: Patients in the controls, RF/RF and RNF/RNF groups had fewer depressive symptoms at 90 and 180 days, but the response was significantly stronger for patients in the RF/RF group. Lower rates of suicidal ideation were also noted in the RF/RF group than the control group at 90 and 180 days of treatment.

Conclusion: Computational analysis of EEG patterns may augment physicians' skills at selecting medications for the patients.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
基于脑电图模式的算法治疗改善了重度抑郁症患者的预后。
目的:选择正确的药物治疗重度抑郁症(MDD)是具有挑战性的,在找到有效的药物之前,患者经常服用几种药物。利用病人的脑电图模式和计算机模型来选择药物是一个潜在的解决方案,然而,它并没有被广泛应用。因此,我们评估了一个市售的脑电图数据分析系统,以帮助指导临床环境中的药物选择。方法:招募重度抑郁症患者,由其医生根据自己的判断选择药物(对照组;n = 115)或依赖计算机指导选择药物(PEER n = 165)。在研究开始前(第0天)以及在~90和~180天再次获得患者的抑郁症状快速量表(QIDS SR-16)评分。PEER组的患者根据是否全程遵循报告(RF/RF)、仅前90天(RF/RNF)、仅后90天(RNF/RF)或根本不遵循报告(RNF/RNF)分为四组之一。然后将结果与医生进行脑电图并提交数据但未收到PEER报告的对照组进行比较。结果:对照组、RF/RF组和RNF/RNF组患者在90天和180天的抑郁症状较少,但RF/RF组患者的反应明显更强。在治疗90天和180天时,RF/RF组的自杀意念率也低于对照组。结论:脑电图的计算分析可以提高医生为患者选择药物的能力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
7.10%
发文量
884
审稿时长
40 weeks
期刊最新文献
Influence of perceived impostorism on self-esteem and anxiety among University Nursing Students: Recommendations to implement mentorship program. Impact of gestational diabetes on depression and breastfeeding self-efficacy in the postpartum period in a selected hospital of Bhubaneswar. Assessment of services provided by urban ASHAs to mothers of urban slums in Lucknow district - A cross-sectional study. Association of anemia with poor housing quality among older Indian adults: Multilevel modeling analysis of nationally representative cross-sectional study in India. Bariatric surgery and HIV: Joint venture between family, primary care, and HIV physicians.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1