Erin Arthurs

The prevalence of anxiety and depression in adults with implantable cardioverter defibrillators: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE The implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) is used to treat life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias and in the prevention of sudden cardiac death. A significant proportion of ICD patients experience psychological symptoms including anxiety, depression or both, which in turn can impact adjustment to the device. The objective of this systematic review was to assess the prevalence of anxiety and depression or symptoms of anxiety and depression among adults with ICDs. METHODS Search of MEDLINE®, CINAHL®, PsycINFO®, EMBASE® and Cochrane® for English-language articles published through 2009 that used validated diagnostic interviews to diagnose anxiety or depression or self-report questionnaires to assess symptoms of anxiety or depression in adults with an ICD. RESULTS Forty-five studies that assessed over 5000 patients were included. Between 11% and 28% of patients had a depressive disorder and 11-26% had an anxiety disorder in 3 small studies (Ns=35-90) that used validated diagnostic interviews. Rates of elevated symptoms of anxiety (8-63%) and depression (5-41%) based on self-report questionnaires ranged widely across studies and times of assessment. Evidence was inconsistent on rates pre- versus post-implantation, rates over time, rates for primary versus secondary prevention, and for shocked versus non-shocked patients. CONCLUSION Larger studies utilizing structured interviews are needed to determine the prevalence of anxiety and depression among ICD patients and factors that may influence rates of anxiety and depressive disorders. Based on existing data, it may be appropriate to assume a 20% prevalence rate for both depressive and anxiety disorders post-ICD implant, a rate similar to that in other cardiac populations.

Does evidence support the American Heart Association's recommendation to screen patients for depression in cardiovascular care? An updated systematic review.

Objectives To systematically review evidence on depression screening in coronary heart disease (CHD) by assessing the (1) accuracy of screening tools; (2) effectiveness of treatment; and (3) effect of screening on depression outcomes. Background A 2008 American Heart Association (AHA) Science Advisory recommended routine depression screening in CHD. Methods CINAHL, Cochrane, EMBASE, ISI, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and SCOPUS databases searched through December 2, 2011; manual journal searches; reference lists; citation tracking; trial registries. Included articles (1) compared a depression screening instrument to a depression diagnosis; (2) compared depression treatment to placebo or usual care in a randomized controlled trial (RCT); or (3) assessed the effect of screening on depression outcomes in a RCT. Results There were few examples of screening tools with good sensitivity and specificity using a priori-defined cutoffs in more than one patient sample among 15 screening accuracy studies. Depression treatment with antidepressants or psychotherapy generated modest symptom reductions among post-myocardial infarction (post-MI) and stable CHD patients (N = 6; effect size = 0.20–0.38), but antidepressants did not improve symptoms more than placebo in 2 heart failure (HF) trials. Depression treatment did not improve cardiac outcomes. No RCTs investigated the effects of screening on depression outcomes. Conclusions There is evidence that treatment of depression results in modest improvement in depressive symptoms in post-MI and stable CHD patients, although not in HF patients. There is still no evidence that routine screening for depression improves depression or cardiac outcomes. The AHA Science Advisory on depression screening should be revised to reflect this lack of evidence.

Risk of bias from inclusion of patients who already have diagnosis of or are undergoing treatment for depression in diagnostic accuracy studies of screening tools for depression: systematic review

Objectives To investigate the proportion of original studies included in systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the diagnostic accuracy of screening tools for depression that appropriately exclude patients who already have a diagnosis of or are receiving treatment for depression and to determine whether these systematic reviews and meta-analyses evaluate possible bias from the inclusion of such patients. Design Systematic review. Data sources Medline, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Embase, ISI, SCOPUS, and Cochrane databases were searched from 1 January 2005 to 29 October 2009. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Systematic reviews and meta-analyses in any language that reported on the diagnostic accuracy of screening tools for depression. Results Only eight of 197 (4%) unique publications from 17 systematic reviews and meta-analyses specifically excluded patients who already had a diagnosis of or were receiving treatment for depression. No systematic reviews or meta-analyses commented on possible bias from the inclusion of such patients, even though 10 reviews used quality assessment tools with items to rate risk of bias from composition of the sample of patients. Conclusions Studies of the accuracy of screening tools for depression rarely exclude patients who already have a diagnosis of or are receiving treatment for depression, a potential bias that is not evaluated in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. This could result in inflated estimates of accuracy on which clinical practice and preventive care guidelines are often based, a problem that takes on greater importance as the rate of diagnosed and treated depression in the population increases.

Depression screening and patient outcomes in pregnancy or postpartum: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE Clinical practice guidelines disagree on whether health care professionals should screen women for depression during pregnancy or postpartum. The objective of this systematic review was to determine whether depression screening improves depression outcomes among women during pregnancy or the postpartum period. METHODS Searches included the CINAHL, EMBASE, ISI, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO databases through April 1, 2013; manual journal searches; reference list reviews; citation tracking of included articles; and trial registry reviews. RCTs in any language that compared depression outcomes between women during pregnancy or postpartum randomized to undergo depression screening versus women not screened were eligible. RESULTS There were 9,242 unique titles/abstracts and 15 full-text articles reviewed. Only 1 RCT of screening postpartum was included, but none during pregnancy. The eligible postpartum study evaluated screening in mothers in Hong Kong with 2-month-old babies (N=462) and reported a standardized mean difference for symptoms of depression at 6 months postpartum of 0.34 (95% confidence interval=0.15 to 0.52, P<0.001). Standardized mean difference per 44 additional women treated in the intervention trial arm compared to the non-screening arm was approximately 1.8. Risk of bias was high, however, because the status of outcome measures was changed post-hoc and because the reported effect size per woman treated was 6-7 times the effect sizes reported in comparable depression care interventions. CONCLUSION There is currently no evidence from any well-designed and conducted RCT that screening for depression would benefit women in pregnancy or postpartum. Existing guidelines that recommend depression screening during pregnancy or postpartum should be re-considered.

Depression Screening and Patient Outcomes in Cancer: A Systematic Review

Background Several practice guidelines recommend screening for depression in cancer care, but no systematic reviews have examined whether there is evidence that depression screening benefits cancer patients. The objective was to evaluate the potential benefits of depression screening in cancer patients by assessing the (1) accuracy of depression screening tools; (2) effectiveness of depression treatment; and (3) effect of depression screening, either alone or in the context of comprehensive depression care, on depression outcomes. Methods Data sources were CINAHL, Cochrane, EMBASE, ISI, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and SCOPUS databases through January 24, 2011; manual journal searches; reference lists; citation tracking; trial registry reviews. Articles on cancer patients were included if they (1) compared a depression screening instrument to a valid criterion for major depressive disorder (MDD); (2) compared depression treatment with placebo or usual care in a randomized controlled trial (RCT); (3) assessed the effect of screening on depression outcomes in a RCT. Results There were 19 studies of screening accuracy, 1 MDD treatment RCT, but no RCTs that investigated effects of screening on depression outcomes. Screening accuracy studies generally had small sample sizes (median = 17 depression cases) and used exploratory methods to set sample-specific cutoff scores that varied substantially across studies. A nurse-delivered intervention for MDD reduced depressive symptoms moderately (effect size = 0.37). Conclusions The one treatment study reviewed reported modest improvement in depressive symptoms, but no evidence was found on whether or not depression screening in cancer patients, either alone or in the context of optimal depression care, improves depression outcomes compared to usual care. Depression screening in cancer should be evaluated in a RCT in which all patients identified as depressed, either through screening or via physician recognition and referral in a control group, have access to comprehensive depression care.

Prevalence of Antidepressant Prescription or Use in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Systematic Review

Background and Objectives Depression is common among acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients and is associated with poor prognosis. Cardiac side effects of older antidepressants were well-known, but newer antidepressants are generally thought of as safe to use in patients with heart disease. The objective was to assess rates of antidepressant use or prescription to patients within a year of an ACS. Methods PubMed, PsycINFO, and CINAHL databases searched through May 29, 2009; manual searching of 33 journals from May 2009 to September 2010. Articles in any language were included if they reported point or period prevalence of antidepressant use or prescription in the 12 months prior or subsequent to an ACS for ≥100 patients. Two investigators independently selected studies for inclusion/exclusion and extracted methodological characteristics and outcomes from included studies (study setting, inclusion/exclusion criteria, sample size, prevalence of antidepressant prescription/use, method of assessing antidepressant prescription/use, time period of assessment). Results A total of 24 articles were included. The majority were from North America and Europe, and most utilized chart review or self-report to assess antidepressant use or prescription. Although there was substantial heterogeneity in results, overall, rates of antidepressant use or prescription increased from less than 5% prior to 1995 to 10–15% after 2000. In general, studies from North America reported substantially higher rates than studies from Europe, approximately 5% higher among studies that used chart or self-report data. Conclusions Antidepressant use or prescription has increased considerably, and by 2005 approximately 10% to 15% of ACS patients were prescribed or using one of these drugs.

Are Scores on English and French Versions of the PHQ-9 Comparable? An Assessment of Differential Item Functioning

Background Medical research increasingly utilizes patient-reported outcome measures administered and scored in different languages. In order to pool or compare outcomes from different language versions, instruments should be measurement equivalent across linguistic groups. The objective of this study was to examine the cross-language measurement equivalence of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) between English- and French-speaking Canadian patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc). Methods The sample consisted of 739 English- and 221 French-speaking SSc patients. Multiple-Indicator Multiple-Cause (MIMIC) modeling was used to identify items displaying possible differential item functioning (DIF). Results A one-factor model for the PHQ-9 fit the data well in both English- and French-speaking samples. Statistically significant DIF was found for 3 of 9 items on the PHQ-9. However, the overall estimate in depression latent scores between English- and French-speaking respondents was not influenced substantively by DIF. Conclusions Although there were several PHQ-9 items with evidence of minor DIF, there was no evidence that these differences influenced overall scores meaningfully. The PHQ-9 can reasonably be used without adjustment in Canadian English- and French-speaking samples. Analyses assessing measurement equivalence should be routinely conducted prior to pooling data from English and French versions of patient-reported outcome measures.

Cross-Language Measurement Equivalence of the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression (CES-D) Scale in Systemic Sclerosis: A Comparison of Canadian and Dutch Patients

Objectives Increasingly, medical research involves patients who complete outcomes in different languages. This occurs in countries with more than one common language, such as Canada (French/English) or the United States (Spanish/English), as well as in international multi-centre collaborations, which are utilized frequently in rare diseases such as systemic sclerosis (SSc). In order to pool or compare outcomes, instruments should be measurement equivalent (invariant) across cultural or linguistic groups. This study provides an example of how to assess cross-language measurement equivalence by comparing the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression (CES-D) scale between English-speaking Canadian and Dutch SSc patients. Methods The CES-D was completed by 922 English-speaking Canadian and 213 Dutch SSc patients. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to assess the factor structure in both samples. The Multiple-Indicator Multiple-Cause (MIMIC) model was utilized to assess the amount of differential item functioning (DIF). Results A two-factor model (positive and negative affect) showed excellent fit in both samples. Statistically significant, but small-magnitude, DIF was found for 3 of 20 items on the CES-D. The English-speaking Canadian sample endorsed more feeling-related symptoms, whereas the Dutch sample endorsed more somatic/retarded activity symptoms. The overall estimate in depression scores between English and Dutch was not influenced substantively by DIF. Conclusions CES-D scores from English-speaking Canadian and Dutch SSc patients can be compared and pooled without concern that measurement differences may substantively influence results. The importance of assessing cross-language measurement equivalence in rheumatology studies prior to pooling outcomes obtained in different languages should be emphasized.

Stroke After Radiation Therapy for Head and Neck Cancer: What Is the Risk?

PURPOSE A retrospective population-based cohort study was conducted to determine the risk of ischemic stroke with respect to time, associated with curative radiation therapy in head and neck squamous cell carcinomas (HNSCC). METHODS AND MATERIALS On the basis of data from the Ontario Cancer Registry and regional cancer treatment centers, 14,069 patients were identified with diagnoses of squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity, larynx, and pharynx who were treated for cure between 1990 and 2010. Hazards of stroke and time to stroke were examined, accounting for the competing risk of death. Stroke risk factors identified through diagnostic and procedural administrative codes were adjusted for in the comparison between treatment regimens, which included surgery alone versus radiation therapy alone and surgery alone versus any exposure to radiation therapy. RESULTS Overall, 6% of patients experienced an ischemic stroke after treatment, with 5% experiencing a stroke after surgery, 8% after radiation therapy alone, and 6% after any exposure to radiation therapy. The cause-specific hazard ratios of ischemic stroke after radiation therapy alone and after any exposure to radiation therapy compared with surgery were 1.70 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.41-2.05) and 1.46 (95% CI: 1.23-1.73), respectively, after adjustment for stroke risk factors, patient factors, and disease-related factors. CONCLUSIONS Radiation therapy was associated with an increased risk of ischemic stroke compared with surgery alone: for both radiation therapy alone and after all treatment modalities that included any radiation treatment were combined. Because of a shift toward a younger HNSCC patient population, our results speak to the need for adequate follow-up and survivorship care among patients who have been treated with radiation therapy. Advances in treatment that minimize chronic morbidity also require further evaluation.

Symptom reporting on the Beck Depression Inventory among post-myocardial infarction patients: In-hospital versus follow-up assessments

OBJECTIVE Depressive symptoms following myocardial infarction (MI) are often assessed using self-report questionnaires, such as the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI). No studies have examined whether depressive symptom scores assessed by self-report questionnaires during hospitalization post-MI are influenced by factors related to the acute event or hospitalization compared to subsequent outpatient assessments of the same patients. The objective of this study was to compare BDI total scores, somatic scores, and cognitive/affective scores among post-MI patients in-hospital versus at post-discharge follow-up. METHODS Secondary analysis of data from two existing cohorts of post-MI patients (Groningen, The Netherlands and Toronto, Canada). In-hospital BDI scores and follow-up scores were compared using paired samples t-tests. RESULTS There were 1556 patients from the Groningen sample with BDI data in-hospital and at 3-months post-MI and 229 patients from Toronto with data in-hospital and at 6-months post-MI. BDI total, somatic, and cognitive/affective scores did not differ significantly between in-hospital and follow-up assessments in either sample. Similarly, there were no substantive differences in symptom composition in either sample. Somatic symptoms accounted for 66.3% of total BDI scores in-hospital versus 64.9% at 3-months post-MI for Groningen patients and for 62.1% of total scores in-hospital versus 64.3% at 6-months post-MI for Toronto patients. CONCLUSION Overall BDI total scores, somatic scores, and cognitive/affective scores did not differ between in-hospital and subsequent outpatient assessments. The timing of when depressive symptoms are assessed post-MI does not appear to influence the overall level of BDI scores or the composition of symptoms that are reported.