Prognostic and Prescriptive Predictors of Treatment Response to Adjunctive VNS Therapy in Major Depressive Disorder: A RECOVER Trial Report.

IF 4.5 2区 医学 Q1 PSYCHIATRY
Scott T Aaronson, Charles R Conway, Charles Gordon, Ying-Chieh Lisa Lee, Mark S George, John Zajecka, Patricio Riva-Posse, David L Dunner, Matthew Macaluso, Peter B Rosenquist, Brian J Mickey, Yvette I Sheline, Vasilis C Hristidis, Hunter Brown, Christopher L Kriedt, Quyen Tran, Mark T Bunker, Harold A Sackeim, A John Rush
{"title":"Prognostic and Prescriptive Predictors of Treatment Response to Adjunctive VNS Therapy in Major Depressive Disorder: A RECOVER Trial Report.","authors":"Scott T Aaronson, Charles R Conway, Charles Gordon, Ying-Chieh Lisa Lee, Mark S George, John Zajecka, Patricio Riva-Posse, David L Dunner, Matthew Macaluso, Peter B Rosenquist, Brian J Mickey, Yvette I Sheline, Vasilis C Hristidis, Hunter Brown, Christopher L Kriedt, Quyen Tran, Mark T Bunker, Harold A Sackeim, A John Rush","doi":"10.4088/JCP.25m15850","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Objective:</b> Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) therapy is a long-term intervention for treatment-resistant major depression (TRD) adjunctive to treatment as usual (TAU). To enhance clinical decision- making, we identified subgroups that respond especially well or poorly with active VNS vs no stimulation sham VNS (prognostic predictors) and subgroups that specifically benefit from active VNS vs sham VNS (prescriptive predictors).</p><p><p><b>Methods:</b> In the RECOVER trial, patients with marked TRD (N=493) were randomized to either active VNS (N=249) or sham VNS (N=244); both groups continued TAU. Baseline demographic, clinical, and treatment history characteristics were evaluated as potential prognostic and/or prescriptive outcome predictors. Outcome assessment was based on a tripartite measure that combined depressive symptoms (Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-Clinician), psychosocial function (Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire item 6), and quality of life (Mini-Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire). Generalized linear mixed models were employed to identify both prognostic and prescriptive predictors of tripartite outcomes.</p><p><p><b>Results:</b> Several baseline features predicted outcomes across the entire sample and within the sham VNS group (prognostic prediction). History of treatment with electroconvulsive therapy (ECT; lifetime and current episode) or transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS; current episode) was associated with poorer prognosis. However, these same features were associated with greater benefit from active VNS vs sham VNS. The presence of comorbid anxiety disorders was predictive of a better prognosis overall, but smaller benefit from active VNS vs sham VNS.</p><p><p><b>Conclusions:</b> Marked TRD patients with a history of ECT or TMS had especially poorer outcomes when receiving sham VNS plus TAU for 1 year than those without this history. These same subgroups showed significant differential benefit with active VNS than with sham VNS (positive prescriptive effect). The absence of a comorbid anxiety disorder was linked to superior benefit from active VNS vs sham VNS. These predictors may inform clinical decision-making when considering VNS.</p><p><p><b>Trial Registration:</b> ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03887715.</p>","PeriodicalId":50234,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Psychiatry","volume":"86 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Psychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4088/JCP.25m15850","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) therapy is a long-term intervention for treatment-resistant major depression (TRD) adjunctive to treatment as usual (TAU). To enhance clinical decision- making, we identified subgroups that respond especially well or poorly with active VNS vs no stimulation sham VNS (prognostic predictors) and subgroups that specifically benefit from active VNS vs sham VNS (prescriptive predictors).

Methods: In the RECOVER trial, patients with marked TRD (N=493) were randomized to either active VNS (N=249) or sham VNS (N=244); both groups continued TAU. Baseline demographic, clinical, and treatment history characteristics were evaluated as potential prognostic and/or prescriptive outcome predictors. Outcome assessment was based on a tripartite measure that combined depressive symptoms (Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-Clinician), psychosocial function (Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire item 6), and quality of life (Mini-Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire). Generalized linear mixed models were employed to identify both prognostic and prescriptive predictors of tripartite outcomes.

Results: Several baseline features predicted outcomes across the entire sample and within the sham VNS group (prognostic prediction). History of treatment with electroconvulsive therapy (ECT; lifetime and current episode) or transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS; current episode) was associated with poorer prognosis. However, these same features were associated with greater benefit from active VNS vs sham VNS. The presence of comorbid anxiety disorders was predictive of a better prognosis overall, but smaller benefit from active VNS vs sham VNS.

Conclusions: Marked TRD patients with a history of ECT or TMS had especially poorer outcomes when receiving sham VNS plus TAU for 1 year than those without this history. These same subgroups showed significant differential benefit with active VNS than with sham VNS (positive prescriptive effect). The absence of a comorbid anxiety disorder was linked to superior benefit from active VNS vs sham VNS. These predictors may inform clinical decision-making when considering VNS.

Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03887715.

重度抑郁症辅助VNS治疗反应的预后和处方预测因素:一项康复试验报告。
目的:迷走神经刺激(VNS)治疗是治疗难治性重度抑郁症(TRD)的一种辅助常规治疗(TAU)的长期干预手段。为了加强临床决策,我们确定了对主动VNS和无刺激假性VNS(预后预测因子)反应特别好或差的亚组,以及对主动VNS和假性VNS(规定性预测因子)特别受益的亚组。方法:在RECOVER试验中,有明显TRD的患者(N=493)被随机分配到活性VNS (N=249)或假VNS (N=244);两组均继续TAU。基线人口统计学、临床和治疗史特征被评估为潜在的预后和/或处方结果预测因素。结果评估基于三方测量,包括抑郁症状(抑郁症状快速量表-临床医生)、社会心理功能(工作效率和活动障碍问卷第6项)和生活质量(生活享受和满意度迷你质量问卷)。采用广义线性混合模型来确定三方结局的预后和规定性预测因子。结果:几个基线特征预测了整个样本和假VNS组的结果(预后预测)。电休克治疗史;终生和当前发作期)或经颅磁刺激(TMS;当前发作)与预后较差相关。然而,与假VNS相比,这些相同的特征与激活VNS的更大益处相关。总体而言,共病性焦虑障碍的存在预示着更好的预后,但活动性VNS与假性VNS的获益较小。结论:有ECT或TMS病史的显著TRD患者在接受假VNS + TAU治疗1年后的预后比无此病史的患者更差。这些相同的亚组显示,与假性VNS相比,活动性VNS的益处有显著差异(积极的处方效应)。无共病性焦虑障碍与主动VNS与假性VNS的优势相关。这些预测因素可以为临床决策提供参考。试验注册:ClinicalTrials.gov标识符:NCT03887715。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Clinical Psychiatry
Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 医学-精神病学
CiteScore
7.40
自引率
1.90%
发文量
0
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: For over 75 years, The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry has been a leading source of peer-reviewed articles offering the latest information on mental health topics to psychiatrists and other medical professionals.The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry is the leading psychiatric resource for clinical information and covers disorders including depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, anxiety, addiction, posttraumatic stress disorder, and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder while exploring the newest advances in diagnosis and treatment.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信