Dataset Information

Efficacy of Blended Collaborative Care for Patients With Heart Failure and Comorbid Depression: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Depression 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.

Objective

To 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 participants

This 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.

Interventions

Separate 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 measures

The 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.

Results

Of 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 relevance

In 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 registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02044211.

SUBMITTER: Rollman BL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8406216 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND: Depression and coronary heart disease (CHD) are frequently comorbid and portend higher morbidity, mortality and poorer quality of life. Prior systematic reviews of depression treatment randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the population with CHD have not assessed the efficacy of collaborative care. This systematic review aims to bring together the contemporary research on the effectiveness of collaborative care interventions for depression in comorbid CHD populations. METHODS/DESIGN: Electronic databases (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINAHL) will be searched using a sensitive search strategy exploding the topics CHD, depression and RCT. Full text inspection and bibliography searching will be conducted, and authors of included studies will be contacted to identify unpublished studies. Eligibility criteria are: population, depression comorbid with CHD; intervention, RCT of collaborative care defined as a coordinated model of care involving multidisciplinary health care providers, including: (a) primary physician and at least one other health professional (e.g. nurse, psychiatrist, psychologist), (b) a structured patient management plan that delivers either pharmacological or non-pharmacological intervention, (c) scheduled patient follow-up and (d) enhanced inter-professional communication between the multiprofessional team; comparison, either usual care, enhanced usual care, wait-list control group or no further treatment; and outcome, major adverse cardiac events (MACE), standardized measure of depression, anxiety, quality of life, cost-effectiveness. Screening, data extraction and risk of bias assessment will be undertaken by two reviewers with disagreements resolved through discussion. Meta-analytic methods will be used to synthesize the data collected relating to the outcomes. DISCUSSION: This review will evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of collaborative care for depression in populations primarily with CHD. The results will facilitate integration of evidence-based practice for this precarious population. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42014013653.

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:ImportanceDepression and inadequate self-care are common and interrelated problems that increase the risks of hospitalization and mortality in patients with heart failure (HF).ObjectiveTo determine the efficacy of an integrative cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) intervention for depression and HF self-care.Design, setting, and participantsRandomized clinical trial with single-blind outcome assessments. Eligible patients were enrolled at Washington University Medical Center in St Louis between January 4, 2010, and June 28, 2013. The primary data analyses were conducted in February 2015. The participants were 158 outpatients in New York Heart Association Class I, II, and III heart failure with comorbid major depression.InterventionsCognitive behavior therapy delivered by experienced therapists plus usual care (UC), or UC alone. Usual care was enhanced in both groups with a structured HF education program delivered by a cardiac nurse.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was severity of depression at 6 months as measured by the Beck Depression Inventory. The Self-Care of Heart Failure Index Confidence and Maintenance subscales were coprimary outcomes. Secondary outcomes included measures of anxiety, depression, physical functioning, fatigue, social roles and activities, and quality of life. Hospitalizations and deaths were exploratory outcomes.ResultsOne hundred fifty-eight patients were randomized to UC (n = 79) or CBT (n = 79). Within each arm, 26 (33%) of the patients were taking an antidepressant at baseline. One hundred thirty-two (84%) of the participants completed the 6-month posttreatment assessments; 60 (76%) of the UC and 58 (73%) of the CBT participants completed every follow-up assessment (P = .88). Six-month depression scores were lower in the CBT than the UC arm on the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II) (12.8 [10.6] vs 17.3 [10.7]; P = .008). Remission rates differed on the BDI-II (46% vs 19%; number needed to treat [NNT] = 3.76; 95% CI, 3.62-3.90; P < .001) and the Hamilton Depression Scale (51% vs 20%; NNT = 3.29; 95% CI, 3.15-3.43; P < .001). The groups did not differ on the Self-Care Maintenance or Confidence subscales. The mean (SD) Beck Depression Inventory scores 6 months after randomization were lower in the CBT (12.8 [10.6]) than the UC arm (17.3 [10.7]), P = .008. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups on the Self-Care Maintenance or Confidence subscale scores or on physical functioning measures. Anxiety and fatigue scores were lower and mental- and HF-related quality of life and social functioning scores were higher at 6 months in the CBT than the UC arm, and there were fewer hospitalizations in the intervention than the UC arm.Conclusions and relevanceA CBT intervention that targets both depression and heart failure self-care is effective for depression but not for HF self-care or physical functioning relative to enhanced UC. Additional benefits include reduced anxiety and fatigue, improved social functioning, and better health-related quality of life.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01028625.

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.