BACKGROUND: Patients who have had an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) event have an increased risk for depression. PURPOSE: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of depression screening instruments and to compare safety and effectiveness of depression treatments in adults within 3 months of an ACS event. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from January 2003 to August 2017, and a manual search of citations from key primary and review articles. STUDY SELECTION: English-language studies of post-ACS patients that evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of depression screening tools or compared the safety and effectiveness of a broad range of pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic depression treatments. DATA EXTRACTION: 2 investigators independently screened each article for inclusion; abstracted the data; and rated the quality, applicability, and strength of evidence. DATA SYNTHESIS: Evidence from 6 of the 10 included studies showed that a range of depression screening instruments produces acceptable levels of diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, and negative predictive values (70% to 100%) but low positive predictive values (below 50%). The Beck Depression Inventory-II was the most studied tool. A large study found that a combination of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and antidepressant medication improved depression symptoms, mental health-related function, and overall life satisfaction more than usual care. LIMITATION: Few studies, no evaluation of the influence of screening on clinical outcomes, and no studies addressing several clinical interventions of interest. CONCLUSION: Depression screening instruments produce diagnostic accuracy metrics that are similar in post-ACS patients and other clinical populations. Depression interventions have an uncertain effect on cardiovascular outcomes, but CBT combined with antidepressant medication produces modest improvement in psychosocial outcomes. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (PROSPERO: CRD42016047032).
BACKGROUND: Patients who have had an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) event have an increased risk for depression. PURPOSE: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of depression screening instruments and to compare safety and effectiveness of depression treatments in adults within 3 months of an ACS event. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from January 2003 to August 2017, and a manual search of citations from key primary and review articles. STUDY SELECTION: English-language studies of post-ACS patients that evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of depression screening tools or compared the safety and effectiveness of a broad range of pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic depression treatments. DATA EXTRACTION: 2 investigators independently screened each article for inclusion; abstracted the data; and rated the quality, applicability, and strength of evidence. DATA SYNTHESIS: Evidence from 6 of the 10 included studies showed that a range of depression screening instruments produces acceptable levels of diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, and negative predictive values (70% to 100%) but low positive predictive values (below 50%). The Beck Depression Inventory-II was the most studied tool. A large study found that a combination of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and antidepressant medication improved depression symptoms, mental health-related function, and overall life satisfaction more than usual care. LIMITATION: Few studies, no evaluation of the influence of screening on clinical outcomes, and no studies addressing several clinical interventions of interest. CONCLUSION: Depression screening instruments produce diagnostic accuracy metrics that are similar in post-ACS patients and other clinical populations. Depression interventions have an uncertain effect on cardiovascular outcomes, but CBT combined with antidepressant medication produces modest improvement in psychosocial outcomes. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (PROSPERO: CRD42016047032).
Authors: Natasha Petry; Roxana Lupu; Ahmed Gohar; Eric A Larson; Carmen Peterson; Vanessa Williams; Jing Zhao; Russell A Wilke; Lindsay J Hines Journal: Pharmacogenomics Date: 2019-04-15 Impact factor: 2.533
Authors: Sharon L Mulvagh; Kerri-Anne Mullen; Kara A Nerenberg; Amy A Kirkham; Courtney R Green; Abida R Dhukai; Jasmine Grewal; Marsha Hardy; Paula J Harvey; Sofia B Ahmed; Donna Hart; Anna L E Levinsson; Monica Parry; Heather J A Foulds; Christine Pacheco; Sandra M Dumanski; Graeme Smith; Colleen M Norris Journal: CJC Open Date: 2021-09-25
Authors: Antonia Raya-Tena; María Isabel Fernández-San-Martin; Jaume Martin-Royo; Rocío Casañas; Glòria Sauch-Valmaña; Cèlia Cols-Sagarra; Elena Navas-Mendez; Roser Masa-Font; Marc Casajuana-Closas; Quintí Foguet-Boreu; Eva María Fernández-Linares; Jacobo Mendioroz-Peña; Susana González-Tejón; Luis Miguel Martín-López; María Francisca Jiménez-Herrera Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-03-13 Impact factor: 3.390