Al. Brody et al., Regional brain metabolic changes in patients with major depression treatedwith either paroxetine or interpersonal therapy - Preliminary findings, ARCH G PSYC, 58(7), 2001, pp. 631-640
Background: In functional brain imaging studies of major depressive disorde
r (MDD), regional abnormalities have been most commonly found in prefrontal
cortex, anterior cingulate gyrus, and temporal lobe. We examined baseline
regional metabolic abnormalities and metabolic changes from pretreatment to
posttreatment in subjects with MDD. We also performed a preliminary compar
ison of regional changes with 2 distinct forms of treatment (paroxetine and
interpersonal psychotherapy).
Methods: Twenty-four subjects with unipolar MDD and 16 normal control subje
cts underwent resting F 18 (F-18) fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomo
graphy scanning before and after 12 weeks. Between scans, subjects with MDD
were treated with either paroxetine or interpersonal psychotherapy (based
on patient preference). while controls underwent no treatment.
Results: At baseline, subjects with MDD had higher normalized metabolism th
an controls in the prefrontal cortex land caudate and thalamus), and lower
metabolism in the temporal lobe, With treatment, subjects with MDD had meta
bolic changes in the direction of normalization in these regions. After tre
atment, paroxetine-treated subjects had a greater mean decrease in Hamilton
Depression Raring Scale score (61.4%) than did subjects treated with inter
personal psychotherapy (38.0%), but both subgroups showed decreases in norm
alized prefrontal cor tex (paroxetine-treated bilaterally and interpersonal
psychotherapy-treated on the right) and left anterior cingulate gyrus meta
bolism, and increases in normalized left temporal lobe metabolism.
Conclusions: Subjects with MDD had regional brain metabolic abnormalities a
t baseline that tended to normalize with treatment. Regional metabolic chan
ges appeared similar with the Z forms of treatment. These results should be
interpreted with caution because of study limitations (small sample size,
lack of random assignment to treatment groups, and differential treatment r
esponse between treatment subgroups).