Dataset Information

A Randomized Trial of Off-Site Collaborative Care for Depression in Chronic Hepatitis C Virus.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To test the effectiveness of a collaborative depression care model in improving depression and hepatitis C virus (HCV) care.

Data sources/study setting

Hepatitis C virus clinic patients who screened positive for depression at four Veterans Affairs Hospitals.

Study design

We compared off-site depression collaborative care (delivered by depression care manager, pharmacist, and psychiatrist) with usual care in a randomized trial. Primary depression outcomes were treatment response (≥50 percent decrease in 20-item Hopkins Symptoms Checklist [SCL-20] score), remission (mean SCL-20 score, <0.5), and depression-free days (DFDs). Primary HCV outcome was receipt of HCV treatment.

Data collection

Patient data were collected by self-report telephone surveys at baseline and 12 months, and from electronic medical records.

Principal findings

Baseline screening identified 292 HCV-infected patients with depression, and 242 patients completed 12-month follow-up (82.9 percent). Intervention participants were more likely to report depression treatment response, remission, and more DFDs than usual care participants. Intervention participants were more likely to receive antiviral treatment; however, the difference was not statistically significant.

Conclusion

Off-site depression collaborative care improved depression outcomes in HCV patients and may serve as a model for collaboration between mental health and specialty physical health providers in other high co-occurring conditions.

SUBMITTER: Kanwal F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6051980 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceUp to 20% of adolescents experience an episode of major depression by age 18 years yet few receive evidence-based treatments for their depression.ObjectiveTo determine whether a collaborative care intervention for adolescents with depression improves depressive outcomes compared with usual care.DesignRandomized trial with blinded outcome assessment conducted between April 2010 and April 2013.SettingNine primary care clinics in the Group Health system in Washington State.ParticipantsAdolescents (aged 13-17 years) who screened positive for depression (Patient Health Questionnaire 9-item [PHQ-9] score ≥10) on 2 occasions or who screened positive and met criteria for major depression, spoke English, and had telephone access were recruited. Exclusions included alcohol/drug misuse, suicidal plan or recent attempt, bipolar disorder, developmental delay, and seeing a psychiatrist.InterventionsTwelve-month collaborative care intervention including an initial in-person engagement session and regular follow-up by master's-level clinicians. Usual care control youth received depression screening results and could access mental health services through Group Health.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was change in depressive symptoms on a modified version of the Child Depression Rating Scale-Revised (CDRS-R; score range, 14-94) from baseline to 12 months. Secondary outcomes included change in Columbia Impairment Scale score (CIS), depression response (≥50% decrease on the CDRS-R), and remission (PHQ-9 score <5).ResultsIntervention youth (n = 50), compared with those randomized to receive usual care (n = 51), had greater decreases in CDRS-R scores such that by 12 months intervention youth had a mean score of 27.5 (95% CI, 23.8-31.1) compared with 34.6 (95% CI, 30.6-38.6) in control youth (overall intervention effect: F2,747.3 = 7.24, P < .001). Both intervention and control youth experienced improvement on the CIS with no significant differences between groups. At 12 months, intervention youth were more likely than control youth to achieve depression response (67.6% vs 38.6%, OR = 3.3, 95% CI, 1.4-8.2; P = .009) and remission (50.4% vs 20.7%, OR = 3.9, 95% CI, 1.5-10.6; P = .007).Conclusions and relevanceAmong adolescents with depression seen in primary care, a collaborative care intervention resulted in greater improvement in depressive symptoms at 12 months than usual care. These findings suggest that mental health services for adolescents with depression can be integrated into primary care.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01140464.

Project description:Depressive symptoms commonly follow coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery and are associated with less positive clinical outcomes.To test the effectiveness of telephone-delivered collaborative care for post-CABG depression vs usual physician care.Single-blind effectiveness trial at 7 university-based and community hospitals in or near Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Participants were 302 post-CABG patients with depression (150, intervention; 152, usual care) and a comparison group of 151 randomly sampled post-CABG patients without depression recruited between March 2004 and September 2007 and observed as outpatients until June 2008.Eight months of telephone-delivered collaborative care provided by nurses working with patients' primary care physicians and supervised by a psychiatrist and primary care physician from this study.Mental health-related quality of life (HRQL) measured by the Short Form-36 Mental Component Summary (SF-36 MCS) at 8-month follow-up; secondary outcome measures included assessment of mood symptoms (Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression [HRS-D]), physical HRQL (SF-36 PCS), and functional status (Duke Activity Status Index [DASI]); and hospital readmissions.The intervention patients reported greater improvements in mental HRQL (all P < or = .02) (SF-36 MCS: Delta, 3.2 points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.5-6.0), physical functioning (DASI: Delta, 4.6 points; 95% CI, 1.9-7.3), and mood symptoms (HRS-D: Delta, 3.1 points; 95% CI, 1.3-4.9); and were more likely to report a 50% or greater decline in HRS-D score from baseline (50.0% vs 29.6%; number needed to treat, 4.9 [95% CI, 3.2-10.4]) than usual care patients (P < .001). Men with depression were particularly likely to benefit from the intervention (SF-36 MCS: Delta, 5.7 points; 95% CI, 2.2-9.2; P = .001). However, the mean HRQL and physical functioning of intervention patients did not reach that of the nondepressed comparison group.Compared with usual care, telephone-delivered collaborative care for treatment of post-CABG depression resulted in improved HRQL, physical functioning, and mood symptoms at 8-month follow-up.clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00091962.

Project description:BackgroundPatients with depression and poorly controlled diabetes, coronary heart disease, or both have an increased risk of adverse outcomes and high health care costs. We conducted a study to determine whether coordinated care management of multiple conditions improves disease control in these patients.MethodsWe conducted a single-blind, randomized, controlled trial in 14 primary care clinics in an integrated health care system in Washington State, involving 214 participants with poorly controlled diabetes, coronary heart disease, or both and coexisting depression. Patients were randomly assigned to the usual-care group or to the intervention group, in which a medically supervised nurse, working with each patient's primary care physician, provided guideline-based, collaborative care management, with the goal of controlling risk factors associated with multiple diseases. The primary outcome was based on simultaneous modeling of glycated hemoglobin, low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, and systolic blood-pressure levels and Symptom Checklist-20 (SCL-20) depression outcomes at 12 months; this modeling allowed estimation of a single overall treatment effect.ResultsAs compared with controls, patients in the intervention group had greater overall 12-month improvement across glycated hemoglobin levels (difference, 0.58%), LDL cholesterol levels (difference, 6.9 mg per deciliter [0.2 mmol per liter]), systolic blood pressure (difference, 5.1 mm Hg), and SCL-20 depression scores (difference, 0.40 points) (P<0.001). Patients in the intervention group also were more likely to have one or more adjustments of insulin (P=0.006), antihypertensive medications (P<0.001), and antidepressant medications (P<0.001), and they had better quality of life (P<0.001) and greater satisfaction with care for diabetes, coronary heart disease, or both (P<0.001) and with care for depression (P<0.001).ConclusionsAs compared with usual care, an intervention involving nurses who provided guideline-based, patient-centered management of depression and chronic disease significantly improved control of medical disease and depression. (Funded by the National Institute of Mental Health; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00468676.).

Project description:BACKGROUND:Despite evidence on efficacious interventions, a great proportion of depressed adolescents do not receive evidence-based treatment and have no access to specialized mental health care. Remote collaborative depression care (RCDC) may help to reduce the gap between needs and specialized mental health services. OBJECTIVE:The objective of this study was to assess the feasibility, acceptability, and effectiveness of an RCDC intervention for adolescents with major depressive disorder (MDD) living in the Araucanía Region, Chile. METHODS:A cluster randomized, assessor-blind trial was carried out at 16 primary care centers in the Araucanía Region, Chile. Before randomization, all participating primary care teams were trained in clinical guidelines for the treatment of adolescent depression. Adolescents (N=143; 13-19 years) with MDD were recruited. The intervention group (RCDC, N=65) received a 3-month RCDC treatment that included continuous remote supervision by psychiatrists located in Santiago, Chile's capital city, through shared electronic health records (SEHR) and phone patient monitoring. The control group (enhanced usual care or EUC; N=78) received EUC by clinicians who were encouraged to follow clinical guidelines. Recruitment and response rates and the use of the SEHR system were registered; patient adherence and satisfaction with the treatment and clinician satisfaction with RCDC were assessed at 12-week follow-up; and depressive symptoms and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) were evaluated at baseline and 12-weeks follow-up. RESULTS:More than 60.3% (143/237) of the original estimated sample size was recruited, and a response rate of 90.9% (130/143) was achieved at 12-week follow-up. A mean (SD) of 3.5 (4.0) messages per patient were written on the SEHR system by primary care teams. A third of the patients showed an optimal adherence to psychopharmacological treatment, and adolescents in the RCDC intervention group were more satisfied with psychological assistance than those in EUC group. Primary care clinicians were satisfied with the RCDC intervention, valuing its usefulness. There were no significant differences in depressive symptoms or HRQoL between groups. Satisfaction with psychological care, in both groups, was related to a significant change in depressive symptomatology at 12-weeks follow-up (beta=-4.3, 95% CI -7.2 to -1.3). CONCLUSIONS:This is the first trial of its kind in Latin America that includes adolescents from vulnerable backgrounds, with an intervention that proved to be feasible and well accepted by both patients and primary care clinicians. Design and implementation issues may explain similar effectiveness across arms. The effectiveness of the intervention seems to be comparable with an already nationwide established treatment program that proved to be highly efficacious under controlled conditions. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01860443; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01860443 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6wafMKlTY).

Project description:PurposeTo determine the effectiveness of the Alleviating Depression Among Patients With Cancer (ADAPt-C) collaborative care management for major depression or dysthymia.Patients and methodsStudy patients included 472 low-income, predominantly female Hispanic patients with cancer age >or= 18 years with major depression (49%), dysthymia (5%), or both (46%). Patients were randomly assigned to intervention (n = 242) or enhanced usual care (EUC; n = 230). Intervention patients had access for up to 12 months to a depression clinical specialist (supervised by a psychiatrist) who offered education, structured psychotherapy, and maintenance/relapse prevention support. The psychiatrist prescribed antidepressant medications for patients preferring or assessed to require medication.ResultsAt 12 months, 63% of intervention patients had a 50% or greater reduction in depressive symptoms from baseline as assessed by the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) depression scale compared with 50% of EUC patients (odds ratio [OR] = 1.98; 95% CI, 1.16 to 3.38; P = .01). Improvement was also found for 5-point decrease in PHQ-9 score among 72.2% of intervention patients compared with 59.7% of EUC patients (OR = 1.99; 95% CI, 1.14 to 3.50; P = .02). Intervention patients also experienced greater rates of depression treatment (72.3% v 10.4% of EUC patients; P < .0001) and significantly better quality-of-life outcomes, including social/family (adjusted mean difference between groups, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.22 to 4.17; P < .001), emotional (adjusted mean difference, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.26 to 2.22; P = .01), functional (adjusted mean difference, 1.34; 95% CI, 0.08 to 2.59; P = .04), and physical well-being (adjusted mean difference, 2.79; 95% CI, 0.49 to 5.1; P = .02).ConclusionADAPt-C collaborative care is feasible and results in significant reduction in depressive symptoms, improvement in quality of life, and lower pain levels compared with EUC for patients with depressive disorders in a low-income, predominantly Hispanic population in public sector oncology clinics.

Project description:ImportanceDepression is often comorbid in patients with heart failure (HF) and is associated with worse clinical outcomes. However, depression generally goes unrecognized and untreated in this population.ObjectiveTo determine whether a blended collaborative care program for treating both HF and depression can improve clinical outcomes more than collaborative care for HF only and physicians' usual care (UC).Design, setting, and participantsThis 3-arm, single-blind, randomized effectiveness trial recruited 756 participants with HF with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (<45%) from 8 university-based and community hospitals in southwestern Pennsylvania between March 2014 and October 2017 and observed them until November 2018. Participants included 629 who screened positive for depression during hospitalization and 2 weeks postdischarge and 127 randomly sampled participants without depression to facilitate further comparisons. Key analyses were performed November 2018 to March 2019.InterventionsSeparate physician-supervised nurse teams provided either 12 months of collaborative care for HF and depression ("blended" care) or collaborative care for HF only (enhanced UC [eUC]).Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was mental health-related quality of life (mHRQOL) as measured by the Mental Component Summary of the 12-item Short Form Health Survey (MCS-12). Secondary outcomes included mood, physical function, HF pharmacotherapy use, rehospitalizations, and mortality.ResultsOf the 756 participants (mean [SD] age, 64.0 [13.0] years; 425 [56%] male), those with depression reported worse mHRQOL, mood, and physical function but were otherwise similar to those without depression (eg, mean left ventricular ejection fraction, 28%). At 12 months, blended care participants reported a 4.47-point improvement on the MCS-12 vs UC (95% CI, 1.65 to 7.28; P = .002), but similar scores as the eUC arm (1.12; 95% CI, -1.15 to 3.40; P = .33). Blended care participants also reported better mood than UC participants (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-Depression effect size, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.28 to 0.67) and eUC participants (0.24; 95% CI, 0.07 to 0.41), but physical function, HF pharmacotherapy use, rehospitalizations, and mortality were similar by both baseline depression and randomization status.Conclusions and relevanceIn this randomized clinical trial of patients with HF and depression, telephone-delivered blended collaborative care produced modest improvements in mHRQOL, the primary outcome, on the MCS-12 vs UC but not eUC. Although blended care did not differentially affect rehospitalization and mortality, it improved mood better than eUC and UC and thus may enable organized health care systems to provide effective first-line depression care to medically complex patients.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02044211.