The use of the Psychiatric Electroencephalography Evaluation Registry (PEER) to personalize pharmacotherapy

PURPOSE This study aims to determine whether Psychiatric Electroencephalography Evaluation Registry (PEER) Interactive (an objective, adjunctive tool based on a comparison of a quantitative electroencephalogram to an existing registry of patient outcomes) is more effective than the current standard of care in treatment of subjects suffering from depression. PATIENTS AND METHODS This is an interim report of an ongoing, 2-year prospective, randomized, double blind, controlled study to evaluate PEER Interactive in guiding medication selection in subjects with a primary diagnosis of depression vs standard treatment. Subjects in treatment at two military hospitals were blinded as to study group assignment and their self-report symptom ratings were also blinded. Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology, Self-Report (QIDS-SR16) depression scores were the primary efficacy endpoint. One hundred and fifty subjects received a quantitative electroencephalography exam and were randomized to either treatment as usual or PEER-informed pharmacotherapy. Subjects in the control group were treated according to Veterans Administration/Department of Defense Guidelines, the current standard of care. In the experimental group, the attending physician received a PEER report ranking the subject's likely clinical response to on-label medications. RESULTS In this post hoc interim analysis subjects were separated into Report Followed and Report Not Followed groups - based on the concordance between their subsequent treatment and PEER medication guidance. We thus evaluated the predictive validity of PEER recommendations. We found significantly greater improvements in depression scores (QIDS-SR16 P<0.03), reduction in suicidal ideation (Concise Health Risk Tracking Scale-SR7 P<0.002), and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) score improvement (PTSD Checklist Military/Civilian P<0.04) for subjects treated with PEER-recommended medications compared to those who did not follow PEER recommendations. CONCLUSION This interim analysis suggests that an objective tool such as PEER Interactive can help improve medication selection. Consistent with results of earlier studies, it supports the hypothesis that PEER-guided treatment offers distinct advantages over the current standard of care.