IMPORTANCE: Controversy remains about whether depression can be successfully managed after acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and the costs and benefits of doing so. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effects of providing post-ACS depression care on depressive symptoms and health care costs. DESIGN: Multicenter randomized controlled trial. SETTING:Patients were recruited from 2 private and 5 academic ambulatory centers across the United States. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 150 patients with elevated depressive symptoms (Beck Depression Inventory [BDI] score≥10) 2 to 6 months after an ACS, recruited between March 18, 2010, and January 9, 2012. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to 6 months of centralized depression care (patient preference for problem-solving treatment given via telephone or the Internet, pharmacotherapy, both, or neither), stepped every 6 to 8 weeks (active treatment group; n = 73), or to locally determined depression care after physician notification about the patient's depressive symptoms (usual care group; n = 77). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Change in depressive symptoms during 6 months and total health care costs. RESULTS:Depressive symptoms decreased significantly more in the active treatment group than in the usual care group (differential change between groups, -3.5 BDI points; 95% CI, -6.1 to -0.7; P = .01). Although mental health care estimated costs were higher for active treatment than for usual care, overall health careestimated costs were not significantly different (difference adjusting for confounding, -$325; 95% CI, -$2639 to $1989; P = .78). CONCLUSIONS: For patients with post-ACS depression, active treatment had a substantial beneficial effect on depressive symptoms. This kind of depression care is feasible, effective, and may be cost-neutral within 6 months; therefore, it should be tested in a large phase 3 pragmatic trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01032018.
RCT Entities:
IMPORTANCE: Controversy remains about whether depression can be successfully managed after acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and the costs and benefits of doing so. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effects of providing post-ACS depression care on depressive symptoms and health care costs. DESIGN: Multicenter randomized controlled trial. SETTING:Patients were recruited from 2 private and 5 academic ambulatory centers across the United States. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 150 patients with elevated depressive symptoms (Beck Depression Inventory [BDI] score ≥10) 2 to 6 months after an ACS, recruited between March 18, 2010, and January 9, 2012. INTERVENTIONS:Patients were randomized to 6 months of centralized depression care (patient preference for problem-solving treatment given via telephone or the Internet, pharmacotherapy, both, or neither), stepped every 6 to 8 weeks (active treatment group; n = 73), or to locally determined depression care after physician notification about the patient's depressive symptoms (usual care group; n = 77). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Change in depressive symptoms during 6 months and total health care costs. RESULTS:Depressive symptoms decreased significantly more in the active treatment group than in the usual care group (differential change between groups, -3.5 BDI points; 95% CI, -6.1 to -0.7; P = .01). Although mental health care estimated costs were higher for active treatment than for usual care, overall health care estimated costs were not significantly different (difference adjusting for confounding, -$325; 95% CI, -$2639 to $1989; P = .78). CONCLUSIONS: For patients with post-ACS depression, active treatment had a substantial beneficial effect on depressive symptoms. This kind of depression care is feasible, effective, and may be cost-neutral within 6 months; therefore, it should be tested in a large phase 3 pragmatic trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01032018.
Authors: Joost P van Melle; Peter de Jonge; Johan Ormel; Harry J G M Crijns; Dirk J van Veldhuisen; Adriaan Honig; Aart H Schene; Maarten P van den Berg Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2005-09-05 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: J J Strik; A Honig; R Lousberg; A H Lousberg; E C Cheriex; H G Tuynman-Qua; P M Kuijpers; H J Wellens; H M Van Praag Journal: Psychosom Med Date: 2000 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 4.312
Authors: Alexander H Glassman; Christopher M O'Connor; Robert M Califf; Karl Swedberg; Peter Schwartz; J Thomas Bigger; K Ranga Rama Krishnan; Louis T van Zyl; J Robert Swenson; Mitchell S Finkel; Charles Landau; Peter A Shapiro; Carl J Pepine; Jack Mardekian; Wilma M Harrison; David Barton; Michael Mclvor Journal: JAMA Date: 2002-08-14 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: A John Rush; Madhukar H Trivedi; Stephen R Wisniewski; Andrew A Nierenberg; Jonathan W Stewart; Diane Warden; George Niederehe; Michael E Thase; Philip W Lavori; Barry D Lebowitz; Patrick J McGrath; Jerrold F Rosenbaum; Harold A Sackeim; David J Kupfer; James Luther; Maurizio Fava Journal: Am J Psychiatry Date: 2006-11 Impact factor: 18.112
Authors: Wayne Katon; Joan Russo; Elizabeth H B Lin; Julie Schmittdiel; Paul Ciechanowski; Evette Ludman; Do Peterson; Bessie Young; Michael Von Korff Journal: Arch Gen Psychiatry Date: 2012-05
Authors: Rachel P Dreyer; Kumar Dharmarajan; Kevin F Kennedy; Philip G Jones; Viola Vaccarino; Karthik Murugiah; Sudhakar V Nuti; Kim G Smolderen; Donna M Buchanan; John A Spertus; Harlan M Krumholz Journal: Circulation Date: 2017-02-07 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Christopher M Celano; Ana C Villegas; Ariana M Albanese; Hanna K Gaggin; Jeff C Huffman Journal: Harv Rev Psychiatry Date: 2018 Jul/Aug Impact factor: 3.732
Authors: Heather M Johnson; Lisa Sullivan-Vedder; KyungMann Kim; Patrick E McBride; Maureen A Smith; Jamie N LaMantia; Jennifer T Fink; Megan R Knutson Sinaise; Laura M Zeller; Diane R Lauver Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2019-01-21 Impact factor: 2.226