Acta neuropsychiatrica · 2022
Serum S100B protein after electroconvulsive therapy in patients with depression.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Gbyl Krzysztof, Jørgensen Niklas Rye, Videbech Poul
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: S100B is a glial cell protein with bimodal function. In low concentrations, it exerts neurotrophic effects, but higher levels reflect neuronal distress. Recent research suggests that this molecule may be a biomarker of response to electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). We examined the effect of ECT on serum S100B and its utility as 1) a biomarker of a depressive state and 2) a predictor of ECT response. We also wanted to ensure that ECT does not cause a marked serum S100B elevation, indicating neural distress.
METHODS: We measured serum S100B in 22 in-patients treated with ECT due to depression. Depression severity was assessed using 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAMD-17). The data were collected before an ECT series, within 1 week after the series (post-ECT), and at a 6-month follow-up. Changes in serum S100B and clinical outcomes were tested using a linear mixed model. A relationship between serum S100B and the clinical outcomes was examined using Spearman's and partial correlation.
RESULTS: Serum S100B did not change significantly immediately after an ECT series or 6 months later. The post-ECT serum S100B change was not associated with the clinical effect (rho = 0.14, n = 22, p = 0.54). The baseline serum S100B did not predict the clinical effect when controlling for age (r = 0.02, n = 22, df = 19, p = 0.92).
CONCLUSION: The study neither supports serum S100B as a state marker of depression nor a predictor of ECT response. No evidence for ECT-related neural distress was found.
METHODS: We measured serum S100B in 22 in-patients treated with ECT due to depression. Depression severity was assessed using 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAMD-17). The data were collected before an ECT series, within 1 week after the series (post-ECT), and at a 6-month follow-up. Changes in serum S100B and clinical outcomes were tested using a linear mixed model. A relationship between serum S100B and the clinical outcomes was examined using Spearman's and partial correlation.
RESULTS: Serum S100B did not change significantly immediately after an ECT series or 6 months later. The post-ECT serum S100B change was not associated with the clinical effect (rho = 0.14, n = 22, p = 0.54). The baseline serum S100B did not predict the clinical effect when controlling for age (r = 0.02, n = 22, df = 19, p = 0.92).
CONCLUSION: The study neither supports serum S100B as a state marker of depression nor a predictor of ECT response. No evidence for ECT-related neural distress was found.