Dataset Information

Rationale, design, and baseline data for a multicenter randomized clinical trial comparing depression screening strategies after acute coronary syndrome: The comparison of depression identification after acute Coronary Syndromes-Quality of Life and Cost Outcomes (CODIACS-QOL) trial.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Elevated depressive symptoms among survivors of acute coronary syndromes (ACS) confer recurrent cardiovascular events and mortality, worse quality of life, and higher healthcare costs. While multiple scientific groups advise routine depression screening for ACS survivors, no randomized trials exist to inform this screening recommendation. We aimed to assess the effect of screening for depression on change in quality of life over 18?months among ACS patients. METHODS:The Comparison of Depression Identification after Acute Coronary Syndrome on Quality of Life and Cost Outcomes (CODIACS-QoL) trial is a pragmatic, 3-arm trial that randomized ACS patients to 1) systematic depression screening using the 8-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-8) and if positive screen (PHQ-8???10), notification of primary care providers (PCPs) and invitation to participate in centralized, patient-preference, stepped depression care (Screen, Notify, and Treat, N?=?499); 2) systematic depression screening and PCP notification only (Screen and Notify, N?=?501); and 3) usual care (No Screen, N?=?500). Adults hospitalized for ACS in the previous 2-12?months without prior history of depression were eligible for participation. Key outcomes will be quality-adjusted life years (primary), cost of health care utilization, and depression-free days across 18?months. RESULTS:A total of 1500 patients were randomized in the CODIACS-QOL trial (28.3% women; 16.3% Hispanic; mean age 65.9 (11.5) years). Only 7% of ACS survivors had elevated depressive symptoms. CONCLUSIONS:Using a novel randomization schema and pragmatic design principles, the CODIACS-QoL trial achieved its enrollment target. Eventual results of this trial will inform future depression screening recommendations in cardiac patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01993017).

SUBMITTER: Moise N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6754099 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Rationale, design, and baseline data for a multicenter randomized clinical trial comparing depression screening strategies after acute coronary syndrome: The comparison of depression identification after acute Coronary Syndromes-Quality of Life and Cost Outcomes (CODIACS-QOL) trial.

Moise Nathalie N Davidson Karina W KW Cheung Ying Kuen K YKK Clarke Gregory N GN Dolor Rowena J RJ Duer-Hefele Joan J Ladapo Joseph A JA Margolis Karen L KL St Onge Tara T Parsons Faith F Retuerto Jessica J Schmit Kristine M KM Thanataveerat Anusorn A Kronish Ian M IM

Contemporary clinical trials 20190813

<h4>Background</h4>Elevated depressive symptoms among survivors of acute coronary syndromes (ACS) confer recurrent cardiovascular events and mortality, worse quality of life, and higher healthcare costs. While multiple scientific groups advise routine depression screening for ACS survivors, no randomized trials exist to inform this screening recommendation. We aimed to assess the effect of screening for depression on change in quality of life over 18 months among ACS patients.<h4>Methods</h4>The ...[more]

PMID: 31419605

Similar Datasets

Project description:Importance:Patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and elevated depressive symptoms are at increased risk for recurrent cardiovascular events and mortality, worse quality of life, and higher health care costs. These observational findings prompted multiple scientific panels to advise universal depression screening in survivors of ACS prior to evidence from randomized screening trials. Objective:To determine whether systematically screening for depression in survivors of ACS improves quality of life and depression compared with usual care. Design, Setting, and Participants:A 3-group multisite randomized trial enrolled 1500 patients with ACS from 4 health care systems between November 1, 2013, and March 31, 2017, with follow-up ending July 31, 2018. Patients were eligible if they had been hospitalized for ACS in the previous 2 to 12 months and had no prior history of depression. All analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis. Interventions:Patients with ACS were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to receive (1) systematic depression screening using the 8-item Patient Health Questionnaire, with notification of primary care clinicians and provision of centralized, patient-preference, stepped depression care for those with positive screening results (8-item Patient Health Questionnaire score ?10; screen, notify, and treat, n?=?499); (2) systematic depression screening, with notification of primary care clinicians for those with positive screening results (screen and notify, n?=?501); and (3) usual care (no screening, n?=?500). Main Outcomes and Measures:The primary outcome was change in quality-adjusted life-years. The secondary outcome was depression-free days. Adverse effects and mortality were assessed by patient interview and hospital records. Results:A total of 1500 patients (424 women and 1076 men; mean [SD] age, 65.9 [11.5] years) were randomized in the 18-month trial. Only 71 of 1000 eligible survivors of ACS (7.1%) had elevated 8-item Patient Health Questionnaire scores indicating depressive symptoms at screening. There were no differences in mean (SD) change in quality-adjusted life-years (screen, notify and treat, -0.06 [0.20]; screen and notify, -0.06 [0.20]; no screen, -0.06 [0.18]; P?=?.98) or cumulative mean (SD) depression-free days (screen, notify and treat, 343.1 [179.0] days; screen and notify, 351.3 [175.0] days; no screen, 339.0 [176.6] days; P?=?.63). Harms including death, bleeding, or sleep difficulties did not differ among groups. Conclusions and Relevance:In patients with ACS without a history of depression, systematic depression screening with or without providing depression treatment did not alter quality-adjusted life-years, depression-free days, or harms. Trial Registration:ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01993017.

Project description:BackgroundThe Coronary Psychosocial Evaluation Studies trial demonstrated promising results for enhanced depression treatment to reduce cardiovascular risk of patients with acute coronary syndrome and comorbid depression, but the long-term effectiveness of this intervention is unclear.MethodsA total of 157 participants with persistent depression after hospitalization for acute coronary syndromes were enrolled in the Coronary Psychosocial Evaluation Studies trial. A total of 80 participants were allocated to 6 months of enhanced depression treatment, and 77 participants were allocated to usual care. We report on an additional 12 months of observational follow-up for the composite outcome of death or first hospitalization for myocardial infarction or unstable angina.ResultsAlthough the intervention was previously shown to have favorable cardiovascular effects during the treatment period, we observed a significant time-by-treatment group interaction during extended follow-up (P = .008). Specifically, during the 6-month treatment period, death or hospitalization for myocardial infarction/unstable angina occurred in 3 participants (4%) in the treatment group compared with 11 participants (14%) in the usual care group (hazard ratio, 0.25; 95% confidence interval, 0.07-0.90; P = .03). In contrast, during 12 months of additional observational follow-up, 11 participants (14%) in the treatment group experienced the composite outcome of death or hospitalization for myocardial infarction/unstable angina compared with 3 participants (4%) in the usual care group (hazard ratio, 2.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.80-10.56; P = .10).ConclusionsEnhanced depression treatment was associated with a reduced risk of death or hospitalization for myocardial infarction/unstable angina during active treatment, but this effect did not persist after treatment ceased. Future research is needed to confirm our findings and to determine the optimal duration of depression treatment in patients with depression after acute coronary syndromes.

Project description:ImportanceAlthough international guidelines recommend use of the Global Registries of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) risk score (GRS) to guide acute coronary syndrome (ACS) treatment decisions, the prospective utility of the GRS in improving care and outcomes is unproven.ObjectiveTo assess the effect of routine GRS implementation on guideline-indicated treatments and clinical outcomes of hospitalized patients with ACS.Design, setting, and participantsProspective cluster (hospital-level) randomized open-label blinded end point (PROBE) clinical trial using a multicenter ACS registry of acute care cardiology services. Fixed sampling of the first 10 patients within calendar month, with either ST-segment elevation or non-ST-segment elevation ACS. The study enrolled patients from June 2014 to March 2018, and data were analyzed between February 2020 and April 2020.InterventionsImplementation of routine risk stratification using the GRS and guideline recommendations.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was a performance score based on receipt of early invasive treatment, discharge prescription of 4 of 5 guideline-recommended pharmacotherapies, and cardiac rehabilitation referral. Clinical outcomes included a composite of all-cause death and/or myocardial infarction (MI) within 1 year.ResultsThis study enrolled 2318 patients from 24 hospitals and was stopped prematurely owing to futility. Of the patients enrolled, median age was 65 years (interquartile range, 56-74 years), 29.5% were women (n = 684), and 62.9% were considered high risk (n = 1433). Provision of all 3 measures among high-risk patients did not differ between the randomized arms (GRS: 424 of 717 [59.9%] vs control: 376 of 681 [55.2%]; odds ratio [OR], 1.04; 95% CI, 0.63-1.71; P = .88). The provision of early invasive treatment was increased compared with the control arm (GRS: 1042 of 1135 [91.8%] vs control: 989 of 1183 [83.6%]; OR, 2.26; 95% CI, 1.30-3.96; P = .004). Prescription of 4 of 5 guideline-recommended pharmacotherapies (GRS: 864 of 1135 [76.7%] vs control: 893 of 1183 [77.5%]; OR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.68-1.38) and cardiac rehabilitation (GRS: 855 of 1135 [75.1%] vs control: 861 of 1183 [72.8%]; OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.32-1.44) were not different. By 12 months, GRS intervention was not associated with a significant reduction in death or MI compared with the control group (GRS: 96 of 1044 [9.2%] vs control: 146 of 1087 [13.4%]; OR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.38-1.14).Conclusions and relevanceRoutine GRS implementation in cardiology services with high levels of clinical care was associated with an increase in early invasive treatment but not other aspects of care. Low event rates and premature study discontinuation indicates the need for further, larger scale randomized studies.Trial registrationanzctr.org.au Identifier: ACTRN12614000550606.

Dataset Information

Rationale, design, and baseline data for a multicenter randomized clinical trial comparing depression screening strategies after acute coronary syndrome: The comparison of depression identification after acute Coronary Syndromes-Quality of Life and Cost Outcomes (CODIACS-QOL) trial.

Publications

Rationale, design, and baseline data for a multicenter randomized clinical trial comparing depression screening strategies after acute coronary syndrome: The comparison of depression identification after acute Coronary Syndromes-Quality of Life and Cost Outcomes (CODIACS-QOL) trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure