Robert M Carney1, Kenneth E Freedland2, Brian C Steinmeyer2, Eugene H Rubin2, Gregory Ewald3. 1. Department of Psychiatry, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA. Electronic address: carneyr@bmc.wustl.edu. 2. Department of Psychiatry, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA. 3. Department of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Depression is a risk factor for morbidity and mortality in patients with coronary heart disease. Finding effective methods for identifying and treating depression in these patients is a high priority. The purpose of this study was to determine whether collaborative care (CC) for patients who screen positive for depression during an outpatient cardiology visit results in greater improvement in depression symptoms and better medical outcomes than seen in patients who screen positive for depression but receive only usual care (UC). METHODS:Two hundred-one patients seen in an outpatient cardiology clinic who screened positive for depression during an outpatient visit were randomized to receive either CC or UC. Recommendations for depression treatment and ongoing support and monitoring of depression symptoms were provided to CC patients and their primary care physicians (PCPs) for up to 6months. RESULTS: There were no differences between the arms in mean Beck Depression Inventory-II scores(CC, 15.9; UC, 17.4; p=.45) or in depression remission rates(CC, 32.5%; UC, 26.2%; p=0.34) after 6months, or in the number of hospitalizations after 12months (p=0.73). There were fewer deaths among the CC (1/100) than UC patients (8/101) (p=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: This trial did not show that CC produces better depression outcomes than UC. Screening led to a higher rate of depression treatment than was expected in the UC group, and delays in obtaining depression treatment from PCPs may have reduced treatment effectiveness for the CC patients. A different strategy for depression treatment following screening in outpatient cardiology services is needed.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND:Depression is a risk factor for morbidity and mortality in patients with coronary heart disease. Finding effective methods for identifying and treating depression in these patients is a high priority. The purpose of this study was to determine whether collaborative care (CC) for patients who screen positive for depression during an outpatient cardiology visit results in greater improvement in depression symptoms and better medical outcomes than seen in patients who screen positive for depression but receive only usual care (UC). METHODS: Two hundred-one patients seen in an outpatient cardiology clinic who screened positive for depression during an outpatient visit were randomized to receive either CC or UC. Recommendations for depression treatment and ongoing support and monitoring of depression symptoms were provided to CC patients and their primary care physicians (PCPs) for up to 6months. RESULTS: There were no differences between the arms in mean Beck Depression Inventory-II scores(CC, 15.9; UC, 17.4; p=.45) or in depression remission rates(CC, 32.5%; UC, 26.2%; p=0.34) after 6months, or in the number of hospitalizations after 12months (p=0.73). There were fewer deaths among the CC (1/100) than UC patients (8/101) (p=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: This trial did not show that CC produces better depression outcomes than UC. Screening led to a higher rate of depression treatment than was expected in the UC group, and delays in obtaining depression treatment from PCPs may have reduced treatment effectiveness for the CC patients. A different strategy for depression treatment following screening in outpatient cardiology services is needed.
Authors: Kenneth E Freedland; Judith A Skala; Robert M Carney; James M Raczynski; C Barr Taylor; Carlos F Mendes de Leon; Gail Ironson; Marston E Youngblood; K Ranga Rama Krishnan; Richard C Veith Journal: Psychosom Med Date: 2002 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 4.312
Authors: Jürgen Unützer; Wayne Katon; Christopher M Callahan; John W Williams; Enid Hunkeler; Linda Harpole; Marc Hoffing; Richard D Della Penna; Polly Hitchcock Noël; Elizabeth H B Lin; Patricia A Areán; Mark T Hegel; Lingqi Tang; Thomas R Belin; Sabine Oishi; Christopher Langston Journal: JAMA Date: 2002-12-11 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: Judith H Lichtman; J Thomas Bigger; James A Blumenthal; Nancy Frasure-Smith; Peter G Kaufmann; François Lespérance; Daniel B Mark; David S Sheps; C Barr Taylor; Erika Sivarajan Froelicher Journal: Circulation Date: 2008-09-29 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Anne N Thorndike; Susan Regan; Kathleen McKool; Richard C Pasternak; Susan Swartz; Nancy Torres-Finnerty; Nancy A Rigotti Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2008-01-28
Authors: Jeff C Huffman; Carol A Mastromauro; Scott R Beach; Christopher M Celano; Christina M DuBois; Brian C Healy; Laura Suarez; Bruce L Rollman; James L Januzzi Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2014-06 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Manish K Jha; Arman Qamar; Muthiah Vaduganathan; Dennis S Charney; James W Murrough Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2019-04-16 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Joanna Abraham; Katherine J Holzer; Emily M Lenard; Kenneth E Freedland; Bethany R Tellor Pennington; Rachel C Wolfe; Theresa A Cordner; Ana A Baumann; Mary Politi; Michael Simon Avidan; Eric Lenze Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-08-23 Impact factor: 3.006