Biomarker Predicts Recovery from a Type of Depression

A new study signifies the beginning of the end of psychiatrists' guess-work in figuring out which antidepressants work best for individual patients

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

By Amy Maxmen of Nature magazine

People who live with clinical depression must also suffer the ‘trial and error’ approach that psychiatrists take when prescribing antidepressants. Now, a study published this week signifies the beginning of the end of guesswork. In it, a blood test predicts who will respond well to a novel treatment for depression, and who might even fare worse.“We haven’t had a test like this in psychiatry before,” says Andy Miller, a professor of psychiatry at Emory University and an author on the study in Archives of General Psychiatry. “There is no brain scan, no physiological measure that tells you whether a patient will respond to one drug more than another.”

The test identifies an inflammatory protein in blood, C-reactive protein or CRP, that indicates internal inflammation. Whereas 62% of depressed participants with high CRP levels responded well to the new treatment, only 33% of participants with low CRP levels did.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The correlation was not entirely unexpected, because the drug suppresses inflammation, and Miller thinks that inflammation underlies depression in some people. To test whether a potent anti-inflammatory could soothe the malady, his team recruited 60 people who had lived with major depression for more than a decade and had received no relief from antidepressants.

Half of the participants received monthly treatments of the rheumatoid arthritis drug, Janssen’s Infliximab, and half received a placebo. Overall, Infliximab did not seem to work. However, when Miller’s team analyzed how the subset of participants with high CRP faired, it turns out they responded well to the drug, with a relief from sadness, suicidal thoughts, anxiety and other symptoms.

Since the late 1980s, researchers have sporadically hypothesized that inflammation can lead to depression. The theory is that depressed behavior might be beneficial in the short term because it reserves an injured animal’s energy for healing rather than romping around in the sunlight. Although the hypothesis has never received widespread support, researchers have found that some depressed patients indeed bear elevated levels of inflammatory proteins.

On the basis of the results from this relatively small study, a biologic drug such as Infliximab might be a better option in the anti-inflammatory realm than Cox-2 inhibitors such as aspirin, which come with unwanted side effects, says Miller. Although he knows of no Infliximab-like drug in development for depression, he says that companies might be encouraged by his team’s results. What’s more, with a biomarker to predict a response, companies will have a better chance of success.

Robert Dantzer, a neuroimmunologist at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Texas, notes that some of the participants in the low-CRP group fared worse on Infliximab than on placebo. Thus, the CRP test could be as important a tool for excluding depressed patients from taking anti-inflammatory therapies as for predicting responders.

This article is reproduced with permission from the magazine Nature. The article was first published on September 5, 2012.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe