Jorge A. Cao-Noya, Cossette Canovas, Lorraine T. Benuto
{"title":"The use of biomarkers as measures of PTSD treatment efficacy and predictors of treatment outcomes: A systematic review","authors":"Jorge A. Cao-Noya, Cossette Canovas, Lorraine T. Benuto","doi":"10.1016/j.cpr.2025.102579","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The efficacy of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) treatments might be hampered by individual differences. In order to maximize treatment efficacy in existing and newly developed interventions, controlling for individual variables is essential in treatment research. Given the marked physiological correlates of PTSD, biomarkers represent a promising solution. Throughout the PTSD literature, biomarkers have been used to assess treatment effects and predict treatment outcomes. However, the wide variety of biomarkers studied, along with several conflicting results, hinder researchers' abilities to comprehensively interpret the results reported. This systematic review of the literature aimed to identify and classify all biomarkers used to assess the efficacy of PTSD interventions and identify pre-treatment biomarkers able to predict treatment outcomes. Following PRISMA guidelines, we identified 70 studies that assessed biomarkers sensitivity to treatment effects and 25 that used biomarkers to predict treatment outcomes. Well-established treatments and newly developed protocols were included. The results were classified and interpreted by biomarker type. Indicators of neuroanatomical structures and functions were the most commonly studied biomarkers, followed by markers of cardiac activation and glucocorticoid analytes. Cardiac activation markers, and concretely heart rate reactivity to trauma cues, showed the most consistent findings, serving as a valuable method to assess treatment effects across different populations and treatment modalities. Other biomarkers showed promising trends both as predictors of treatment outcomes and measures of treatment efficacy, although essential methodological differences significantly impacted the comparison across studies.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48458,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Psychology Review","volume":"118 ","pages":"Article 102579"},"PeriodicalIF":13.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Psychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272735825000455","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The efficacy of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) treatments might be hampered by individual differences. In order to maximize treatment efficacy in existing and newly developed interventions, controlling for individual variables is essential in treatment research. Given the marked physiological correlates of PTSD, biomarkers represent a promising solution. Throughout the PTSD literature, biomarkers have been used to assess treatment effects and predict treatment outcomes. However, the wide variety of biomarkers studied, along with several conflicting results, hinder researchers' abilities to comprehensively interpret the results reported. This systematic review of the literature aimed to identify and classify all biomarkers used to assess the efficacy of PTSD interventions and identify pre-treatment biomarkers able to predict treatment outcomes. Following PRISMA guidelines, we identified 70 studies that assessed biomarkers sensitivity to treatment effects and 25 that used biomarkers to predict treatment outcomes. Well-established treatments and newly developed protocols were included. The results were classified and interpreted by biomarker type. Indicators of neuroanatomical structures and functions were the most commonly studied biomarkers, followed by markers of cardiac activation and glucocorticoid analytes. Cardiac activation markers, and concretely heart rate reactivity to trauma cues, showed the most consistent findings, serving as a valuable method to assess treatment effects across different populations and treatment modalities. Other biomarkers showed promising trends both as predictors of treatment outcomes and measures of treatment efficacy, although essential methodological differences significantly impacted the comparison across studies.
期刊介绍:
Clinical Psychology Review serves as a platform for substantial reviews addressing pertinent topics in clinical psychology. Encompassing a spectrum of issues, from psychopathology to behavior therapy, cognition to cognitive therapies, behavioral medicine to community mental health, assessment, and child development, the journal seeks cutting-edge papers that significantly contribute to advancing the science and/or practice of clinical psychology.
While maintaining a primary focus on topics directly related to clinical psychology, the journal occasionally features reviews on psychophysiology, learning therapy, experimental psychopathology, and social psychology, provided they demonstrate a clear connection to research or practice in clinical psychology. Integrative literature reviews and summaries of innovative ongoing clinical research programs find a place within its pages. However, reports on individual research studies and theoretical treatises or clinical guides lacking an empirical base are deemed inappropriate for publication.