Skip to content

Transdiagnostic Brain-Behavior Profiling to Enhance Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Response

Transdiagnostic Brain-Behavior Profiling to Enhance Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Response

Status
Completed
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT03175068
Enrollment
203
Registered
2017-06-05
Start date
2017-07-05
Completion date
2022-03-01
Last updated
2026-06-23

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Major Depressive Disorder, Social Anxiety Disorder

Keywords

Functional magnetic resonance imaging, Electroencephalography, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Supportive Therapy

Brief summary

Many patients with Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) and generalized Social Anxiety Disorder (gSAD) are treated with cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) but few have meaningful improvement. MDD and gSAD are diseases of brain dysfunction that manifest as impaired emotion regulation; CBT teaches emotion regulation strategies but how it works in the brain remains largely unknown. Individual differences in brain function related to emotion regulation may make some patients better suited for CBT and CBT may remedy the brain dysfunction that underlies these disorders. This project will compare CBT with a placebo psychotherapy (i.e., supportive therapy) in MDD and gSAD to test, validate, and refine brain-based markers and examine mechanisms of change to examine how CBT works and for whom.

Detailed description

Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) and generalized Social Anxiety Disorder (gSAD) are pervasive major public health problems. These disorders are characterized by emotion dysregulation, an inability or inefficiency to regulate negative and positive affect as reflected in common and disorder-specific symptoms (e.g., attentional bias to negative stimuli, excessive/inappropriate negative thoughts, hyperarousal, anhedonia, emotional blunting). Such dysregulation is believed to result from an imbalance between top-down 'emotion regulating' (ER) frontal nodes central in inhibitory control of bottom-up subcortical 'emotion-generating' (EG) nodes in a Fronto-Limbic Affect Regulation and Emotional Salience (FLARES) network. Therefore, successful treatment would be expected to 'normalize' neurofunctional disturbances in the FLARES network, which can be measured with fMRI and more distal units of brain function -- event-related potentials (ERPs) from electroencephalography, startle potentiation from electromyography (EMG), neurocognitive performance, and use of regulation strategies in daily life via self-report. The overarching objective of the proposed study is to understand how, when, and where CBT works and for whom to tailor treatment to improve clinical outcome. Without precisely identified "targets" and "predictors" of change, CBT response will continue to be unpredictably varied with few achieving meaningful clinical improvement placing them at risk for relapse and recurrence. Our proposal builds on published data from our lab and others and Preliminary Data which shows FLARES function, as assayed with fMRI, ERPs, EMG, and behaviors, is sensitive to change following CBT. Importantly, both baseline fMRI and non-fMRI units of brain-behavioral measures predict CBT response better than baseline clinical measures. Such knowledge can lead to more precise interventions aimed at capitalizing on 'strengths' or improving 'deficits' that may each exist before CBT and/or explain why CBT does not work for some patients. The dual development of fMRI ('mechanistic') and non-fMRI ('pragmatic') predictors and indices of therapeutic change is aimed at advancing precision medicine while increasing the clinical utility of 'biomarkers' in the outpatient setting. With this objective, we propose to employ well-validated paradigms to test ER and EG in the context of negative stimuli, reward processes, and fear systems in MDD and gSAD to delineate common and disorder-specific mechanisms of change and predictors of CBT outcome. We will enroll 200 patients: 100 MDD (without comorbid gSAD), 100 gSAD (without comorbid MDD) and randomize them to 12 weeks of manualized CBT or 12 weeks of 'placebo' psychotherapy (supportive therapy) (1:1 ratio). Multiple units of FLARES function will be collected in all patients before (Week 0), during (midway/Week 6) and after treatment (Week 12) to ascertain CBT 'dose' effects, and in 40 healthy controls for comparison. Pre-CBT predictors based on binary (responder/non-responder status) and continuous (extent of change) outcomes will be examined midway (Week 6), immediately after treatment (Week 12), and at 6-month follow-up.

Interventions

BEHAVIORALCBT

CBT works by changing people's attitudes and their behavior by focusing on the thoughts, images, beliefs and attitudes that are held (a person's cognitive processes) and how these processes relate to the way a person behaves, as a way of dealing with emotional problems.

BEHAVIORALST

Treatment designed to improve, reinforce, or sustain a patient's physiological well-being or psychological self-esteem and self-reliance

Sponsors

University of Illinois at Chicago
Lead SponsorOTHER
National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)
CollaboratorNIH

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
BASIC_SCIENCE
Masking
SINGLE (Outcomes Assessor)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to 65 Years
Healthy volunteers
Yes

Inclusion criteria

1. generally medically and neurologically healthy, including no evidence of mental retardation or serious cognitive impairment that would interfere with protocol adherence and/or task performance 2. between the ages of 18 - 65 years old, inclusive 3. right-handed 4. primary diagnosis of MDD or gSAD based on the SCID DSM-5. Patients will be permitted to have limited comorbid and/or history of internalizing psychopathologies (e.g., generalized anxiety disorder, specific phobia, adjustment disorder)

Exclusion criteria

1. personal current or past manic/hypomanic episode or psychotic symptoms 2. active suicidal ideation as determined by the Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS) 3. prior history of standard CBT (failure or success) 4. any current or recent (past 4 weeks) use of medication (prescription or non-prescription) with psychotropic effects 5. psychotherapy other than CBT or psychotropic medication use during the study 6. cognitive dysfunction (traumatic brain injury, mental retardation, dementia) 7. active moderate or severe alcohol and/or substance use disorders For healthy controls: history or current Axis I disorder. Additional

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Changes in Symptom Severity From Baseline to Week 12 Between Treatment Armsbaseline and week 12Patients were randomized to either 12 weeks of cognitive behavioral therapy or supportive therapy. Healthy control (HC) participants did not receive treatment but completed the same assessments at the same time points as patients. Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale (LSAS) and Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) served as primary outcome measures as they are interviewer based standard clinical measures. A composite score combining LSAS and HDRS was constructed using proportion of maximum scaling (POMS) method to represent symptom severity. Higher scores mean worse outcomes. The minimum value is 0 and the maximum value is 1.
Baseline Brain Activity During Emotion Regulation Differences Between Controls and PatientsbaselineOutcomes are parameter estimates (arbitrary units) of brain activity for a priori brain regions of interest (bilateral amygdala, bilateral dorsolateral prefrontal cortex ('DLPFC'), bilateral inferior frontal gyrus ('IFG')) comparing brain activity during task conditions against a baseline condition (look at neutral images; 'Look Neut'). Task conditions are reappraising negative images ('Reappraise') and looking at negative images ('Look Neg'). The Reappraise vs. Look Neut and Look Neg vs. Look Neut are the contrasts of interest. Not all participants who consented to the study completed this task at all time points. Reasons include dropping out of the study, COVID shutdowns, scheduling issues, and participants not consenting to perform task due to use of negative images. Higher values represent greater activation.
Comparisons Between Emotion Regulation Task Brain Activity at Baseline and After Completing Therapy (12 Weeks).baseline and 12 weeksPlanned comparisons (i.e., paired t-test). Outcomes are parameter estimates (arbitrary units) of brain activity for a priori brain regions (amygdala, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), inferior frontal gyrus (IFG)) comparing reappraising negative images ('Reappraise') to baseline condition (look at neutral images; 'Look Neut'). Not all participants who consented to the study completed this task at all time points. Reasons include dropping out of the study, COVID shutdowns, scheduling issues, and participants not consenting to perform task due to use of negative images. Higher values represent greater activation.
Baseline Brain Activity During Emotion Regulation as a Predictor of Psychotherapy Outcome Collapsed Across Treatment Arm.baselineOutcomes are baseline parameter estimates (arbitrary units) of brain activity for a priori brain regions of interest (bilateral amygdala, bilateral dorsolateral prefrontal cortex ('DLPFC'), bilateral inferior frontal gyrus ('IFG')) comparing active conditions against 'baseline' condition (i.e., look at neutral images; 'Look Neut'). Active conditions are reappraising negative images ('Reappraise') and looking at negative images ('Look Neg'). The Reappraise vs. Look Neut and Look Neg vs. Look Neut are the contrasts of interest. Other outcome measure is symptom severity before and after psychotherapy collapsing across cognitive behavioral therapy and supportive therapy to examine general psychotherapy predictors across psychotherapies. Higher values (arbitrary units) represent greater activation. Aim 5 is a continuation of Aim 4 including symptom measures comprised of HAMD and LSAS composite score of maximum scaling method.

Countries

United States

Contacts

PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATORHeide Klumpp, PhD

University of Illinois at Chicago

Participant flow

Pre-assignment details

35 participants consented to the study (included in protocol enrollment) but were not randomized due to study ineligibility or early withdrawal from the study.

Baseline characteristics

Characteristic
Age, Categorical
<=18 years
0 Participants
Age, Categorical
>=65 years
0 Participants
Age, Categorical
Between 18 and 65 years
61 Participants
Age, Continuous28.7 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 9.7
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Hispanic or Latino
8 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Not Hispanic or Latino
37 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Unknown or Not Reported
0 Participants
Principal Diagnoses
MDD Primary Diagnosis
32 Participants
Principal Diagnoses
SAD Primary Diagnosis
29 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
American Indian or Alaska Native
1 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Asian
42 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Black or African American
5 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
More than one race
8 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
1 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Unknown or Not Reported
18 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
White
78 Participants
Region of Enrollment
United States
168 participants
Sex: Female, Male
Female
37 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Male
21 Participants

Adverse events

Event typeEG000
affected / at risk
EG001
affected / at risk
EG002
affected / at risk
deaths
Total, all-cause mortality
0 / 610 / 570 / 50
other
Total, other adverse events
32 / 6125 / 574 / 50
serious
Total, serious adverse events
0 / 610 / 570 / 50

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Jun 24, 2026