005), although remitters did not. Clinician prediction based upon global impression of improvement at day 7 did not predict final outcome. Logistic regression showed that ATR and early Ham-D17 changes were additive predictors of response, but ATR was the sole significant predictor of remission.80 Another goal of BRITE was to examine the prognostic significance of a negative biomarker. The overall response rate to escitalopram in the study was 52%, but in those with a positive ATR biomarker, the response rate was

61%. Conversely, in those with a negative ATR biomarker, Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical the response rate to escitalopram was only 28%. Analyses showed that a low ATR value predicted not only nonresponse to escitalopram, but also subsequent response to treatment among those subjects who were randomly assigned to Neratinib receive the antidepressant bupropion. Subjects with ATR values above the threshold were more Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical than 2.4 times as likely to respond to escitalopram as those with low ATR values (68% vs 28%, P=.001). Subjects with ATR values below the threshold

Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical who were switched to bupropion treatment were 1.9 times as likely to respond to bupropion alone than those who remained on escitalopram treatment (53% vs 28%, P=.034, Figure 3 and Figure 4).81 Figure 3. Logistic regression models of escitalopram and bupropion responders stratified by ATR values. ATR values of subjects randomly assigned to each treatment and who responded to escitalopram or bupropion treatment. Subjects who responded to escitalopram … Figure 4. Logistic regression models of escitalopram and bupropion remitters stratified by ATR values. ATR values of subjects randomly assigned to each treatment and Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical who remitted with escitalopram or bupropion treatment.

Subjects who remitted with escitalopram … These Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical differences were statistically significant. One measure of the potential impact of the use of the ATR biomarker is the “number needed to treat” (NNT), namely the number of patients to whom such a test would need to be applied in order to realize one improved patient outcome.82,83 oxyclozanide These results equate to a NNT of 10 to 11, which is in the range that has been considered to be clinically significant.84 These results must be interpreted with the caveat that treatment was not assigned prospectively on the basis of ATR values. These results are encouraging, and suggest that ATR may be useful as a component of a RE for predicting early in the course of treatment which medication will be most helpful to an individual patient with MDD. The fact that ATR data appear to be complementary to earlychanges in depression rating scores suggests that a RE model that integrates symptom and neurophysiology measures may be the most useful. Gene expression markers Some of the more intriguing putative biomarkers for antidepressant treatment response are early changes in gene expression.