Tehran University of Medical Sciences

Science Communicator Platform

Stay connected! Follow us on X network (Twitter):
Share this content! On (X network) By
Parameter Space and Potential for Biomarker Development in 25 Years of Fmri Drug Cue Reactivity: A Systematic Review Publisher Pubmed



Sangchooli A1 ; Zarebidoky M2, 3 ; Fathi Jouzdani A3 ; Schacht J4 ; Bjork JM5 ; Claus ED6 ; Prisciandaro JJ7 ; Wilson SJ8 ; Wustenberg T9 ; Potvin S10 ; Ahmadi P11 ; Bach P12 ; Baldacchino A13 ; Beck A14, 15 Show All Authors
Authors
  1. Sangchooli A1
  2. Zarebidoky M2, 3
  3. Fathi Jouzdani A3
  4. Schacht J4
  5. Bjork JM5
  6. Claus ED6
  7. Prisciandaro JJ7
  8. Wilson SJ8
  9. Wustenberg T9
  10. Potvin S10
  11. Ahmadi P11
  12. Bach P12
  13. Baldacchino A13
  14. Beck A14, 15
  15. Brady KT7
  16. Brewer JA16
  17. Childress AR17
  18. Courtney KE18
  19. Ebrahimi M3
  20. Filbey FM19
  21. Garavan H20
  22. Ghahremani DG21
  23. Goldstein RZ22
  24. Goudriaan AE23, 24
  25. Grodin EN21
  26. Hanlon CA25, 26
  27. Haugg A27
  28. Heilig M28
  29. Heinz A15
  30. Holczer A29
  31. Van Holst RJ30
  32. Joseph JE31
  33. Juliano AC20
  34. Kaufman MJ32
  35. Kiefer F12
  36. Khojasteh Zonoozi A3
  37. Kuplicki RT33
  38. Leyton M34
  39. London ED21
  40. Mackey S20
  41. Mcclernon FJ35
  42. Mellick WH7
  43. Morley K36
  44. Noori HR37
  45. Oghabian MA38
  46. Oliver JA39
  47. Owens M20
  48. Paulus MP33
  49. Perini I28
  50. Rafei P3
  51. Ray LA21
  52. Sinha R40
  53. Smolka MN41
  54. Soleimani G2
  55. Spanagel R42
  56. Steele VR40
  57. Tapert SF18
  58. Vollstadtklein S12
  59. Wetherill RR17
  60. Witkiewitz K43
  61. Yuan K44
  62. Zhang X45
  63. Verdejogarcia A46
  64. Potenza MN41
  65. Janes AC47
  66. Kober H40
  67. Zilverstand A2
  68. Ekhtiari H2, 33
Show Affiliations
Authors Affiliations
  1. 1. Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
  2. 2. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, United States
  3. 3. Iranian National Center for Addiction Studies (INCAS), Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
  4. 4. Department of Psychiatry, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, United States
  5. 5. Institute for Drug and Alcohol Studies, Department of Psychiatry, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, United States
  6. 6. Department of Biobehavioral Health, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, United States
  7. 7. Addiction Sciences Division, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, United States
  8. 8. Department of Psychology, Pennsylvania State University, State College, United States
  9. 9. Field of Focus IV, Core Facility for Neuroscience of Self-Regulation (CNSR), Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany
  10. 10. Department of Psychiatry and Addiction, Universite de Montreal, Montreal, QC, Canada
  11. 11. Department of Psychiatry, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
  12. 12. Department of Addictive Behaviour and Addiction Medicine, Central Institute of Mental Health (CIMH), Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany
  13. 13. School of Medicine, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, United Kingdom
  14. 14. Faculty of Health, Health and Medical University, Potsdam, Germany
  15. 15. Department of Psychiatry and Neurosciences, Charite Campus Mitte, Charite-Universitatsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
  16. 16. Department of Behavioral and Social Sciences, Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, RI, United States
  17. 17. Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, United States
  18. 18. Department of Psychiatry, University of California, San Diego, United States
  19. 19. Center for BrainHealth, School of Behavioral and Brain Sciences, University of Texas at Dallas, United States
  20. 20. Department of Psychiatry, University of Vermont, Burlington, United States
  21. 21. Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, University of California, Los Angeles, United States
  22. 22. Departments of Psychiatry and Neuroscience, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, United States
  23. 23. Department of Psychiatry, Amsterdam University Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
  24. 24. Amsterdam Neuroscience, Amsterdam, Netherlands
  25. 25. Department of Cancer Biology, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, United States
  26. 26. BrainsWay Inc, Winston-Salem, NC, United States
  27. 27. Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Psychiatric University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
  28. 28. Center for Social and Affective Neuroscience, Department of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, Linkoping University, Linkoping, Sweden
  29. 29. Department of Neurology, Albert Szent-Gyorgyi Health Centre, University of Szeged, Szeged, Hungary
  30. 30. Amsterdam Institute for Addiction Research, Department of Psychiatry, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
  31. 31. Department of Neuroscience, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, United States
  32. 32. McLean Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Belmont, MA, United States
  33. 33. Laureate Institute for Brain Research, Tulsa, OK, United States
  34. 34. Department of Psychiatry, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada
  35. 35. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University, Durham, NC, United States
  36. 36. Specialty of Addiction Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
  37. 37. McGovern Institute for Brain Research, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, United States
  38. 38. Neuroimaging and Analysis Group, Research Center for Molecular and Cellular Imaging, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
  39. 39. TSET Health Promotion Research Center, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, United States
  40. 40. Department of Psychiatry, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, United States
  41. 41. Department of Psychiatry, Technische Universitat Dresden, Dresden, Germany
  42. 42. Institute of Psychopharmacology, Central Institute of Mental Health, Mannheim, Germany
  43. 43. Department of Psychology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, United States
  44. 44. School of Life Science and Technology, Xidian University, Xi'an, China
  45. 45. Department of Psychology, School of Humanities and Social Science, University of Science and Technology of China, Anhui, China
  46. 46. Turner Institute for Brain and Mental Health, Monash University, Clayton, Australia
  47. 47. Cognitive and Pharmacological Neuroimaging Unit, National Institute on Drug Abuse, Baltimore, MD, United States

Source: JAMA Psychiatry Published:2024


Abstract

Importance: In the last 25 years, functional magnetic resonance imaging drug cue reactivity (FDCR) studies have characterized some core aspects in the neurobiology of drug addiction. However, no FDCR-derived biomarkers have been approved for treatment development or clinical adoption. Traversing this translational gap requires a systematic assessment of the FDCR literature evidence, its heterogeneity, and an evaluation of possible clinical uses of FDCR-derived biomarkers. Objective: To summarize the state of the field of FDCR, assess their potential for biomarker development, and outline a clear process for biomarker qualification to guide future research and validation efforts. Evidence Review: The PubMed and Medline databases were searched for every original FDCR investigation published from database inception until December 2022. Collected data covered study design, participant characteristics, FDCR task design, and whether each study provided evidence that might potentially help develop susceptibility, diagnostic, response, prognostic, predictive, or severity biomarkers for 1 or more addictive disorders. Findings: There were 415 FDCR studies published between 1998 and 2022. Most focused on nicotine (122 [29.6%]), alcohol (120 [29.2%]), or cocaine (46 [11.1%]), and most used visual cues (354 [85.3%]). Together, these studies recruited 19311 participants, including 13812 individuals with past or current substance use disorders. Most studies could potentially support biomarker development, including diagnostic (143 [32.7%]), treatment response (141 [32.3%]), severity (84 [19.2%]), prognostic (30 [6.9%]), predictive (25 [5.7%]), monitoring (12 [2.7%]), and susceptibility (2 [0.5%]) biomarkers. A total of 155 interventional studies used FDCR, mostly to investigate pharmacological (67 [43.2%]) or cognitive/behavioral (51 [32.9%]) interventions; 141 studies used FDCR as a response measure, of which 125 (88.7%) reported significant interventional FDCR alterations; and 25 studies used FDCR as an intervention outcome predictor, with 24 (96%) finding significant associations between FDCR markers and treatment outcomes. Conclusions and Relevance: Based on this systematic review and the proposed biomarker development framework, there is a pathway for the development and regulatory qualification of FDCR-based biomarkers of addiction and recovery. Further validation could support the use of FDCR-derived measures, potentially accelerating treatment development and improving diagnostic, prognostic, and predictive clinical judgments. © 2024 American Medical Association. All rights reserved.