Michelle Roseman

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.

Reporting of Conflicts of Interest in Meta-analyses of Trials of Pharmacological Treatments

CONTEXT Disclosure of conflicts of interest (COIs) from pharmaceutical industry study funding and author-industry financial relationships is sometimes recommended for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in biomedical journals. Authors of meta-analyses, however, are not required to report COIs disclosed in original reports of included RCTs. OBJECTIVE To investigate whether meta-analyses of pharmacological treatments published in high-impact biomedical journals report COIs disclosed in included RCTs. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION We selected the 3 most recent meta-analyses of patented pharmacological treatments published January 2009 through October 2009 in each general medicine journal with an impact factor of at least 10; in high-impact journals in each of the 5 specialty medicine areas with the greatest 2008 global therapeutic sales (oncology, cardiology, respiratory medicine, endocrinology, and gastroenterology); and in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. DATA EXTRACTION Two investigators independently extracted data on disclosed study funding, author-industry financial ties, and author employment from each meta-analysis, from RCTs included in each meta-analysis, and on whether meta-analyses reported disclosed COIs of included RCTs. RESULTS Of 29 meta-analyses reviewed, which included 509 RCTs, only 2 meta-analyses (7%) reported RCT funding sources; and 0 reported RCT author-industry ties or employment by the pharmaceutical industry. Of 318 meta-analyzed RCTs that reported funding sources, 219 (69%) were industry funded; and 91 of 132 (69%) that reported author financial disclosures had 1 or more authors with pharmaceutical industry financial ties. In 7 of the 29 meta-analyses reviewed, 100% of included RCTs had at least 1 form of disclosed COI (pharmaceutical industry funding, author-industry financial ties, or employment), yet only 1 of these 7 meta-analyses reported RCT funding sources, and 0 reported RCT author-industry ties or employment. CONCLUSION Among a group of meta-analyses of pharmacological treatments published in high-impact biomedical journals, information concerning primary study funding and author COIs for the included RCTs were only rarely reported.

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.

Effects of screening for psychological distress on patient outcomes in cancer: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE Several practice guidelines recommend routine screening for psychological distress in cancer care. The objective was to evaluate the effect of screening cancer patients for psychological distress by assessing the (1) effectiveness of interventions to reduce distress among patients identified as distressed; and (2) effects of screening for distress on distress outcomes. METHODS CINAHL, Cochrane, EMBASE, ISI, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and SCOPUS databases were searched through April 6, 2011 with manual searches of 45 relevant journals, reference list review, citation tracking of included articles, and trial registry reviews through June 30, 2012. Articles in any language on cancer patients were included if they (1) compared treatment for patients with psychological distress to placebo or usual care in a randomized controlled trial (RCT); or (2) assessed the effect of screening on psychological distress in a RCT. RESULTS There were 14 eligible RCTs for treatment of distress, and 1 RCT on the effects of screening on patient distress. Pharmacological, psychotherapy and collaborative care interventions generally reduced distress with small to moderate effects. One study investigated effects of screening for distress on psychological outcomes, and it found no improvement. CONCLUSION Treatment studies reported modest improvement in distress symptoms, but only a single eligible study was found on the effects of screening cancer patients for distress, and distress did not improve in screened patients versus those receiving usual care. Because of the lack of evidence of beneficial effects of screening cancer patients for distress, it is premature to recommend or mandate implementation of routine screening.

Fruitful plans: Adding targeted mental imagery to implementation intentions increases fruit consumption

Forming implementation intentions (‘If I encounter situation X, then I will perform behaviour Y!’) increases the probability of carrying out goals. This study tested the hypothesis that mental imagery targeting key elements of implementation intentions further increases goal achievement. The residents of a student residence were assigned the goal of consuming extra portions of fruit every day for 7 days and randomly assigned to one of four conditions: control (active rehearsal), implementation intentions, goal intention mental imagery or mental imagery targeted to the implementation intentions. Among low fruit consumers, but not high fruit consumers, fruit consumption at follow-up was higher in the targeted mental imagery group than in the other group, with the lowest fruit consumption in the control group. The findings suggest that it may be beneficial to use targeted mental imagery when forming implementation intentions.

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 emotional distress in newly diagnosed lung cancer patients.

Goals of workDistress is defined by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network as a multifactorial unpleasant emotional experience of a psychological, social, and/or spiritual nature that may interfere with the ability to cope effectively with cancer. We investigated the prevalence and associated symptoms of distress in newly diagnosed lung cancer patients.Patients and methodsBetween November 2005 and July 2007, 98 newly diagnosed lung cancer patients completed an assessment. The Distress Thermometer (DT) and Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) were used as screening tools.Main resultsFifty (51%) patients reported clinically significant distress (≥4) on the DT. Of those, 26 (52%) patients reported high levels of depression, nervousness, or both on ESAS. The remaining 24 (48%) patients had elevated levels of distress but no significant depression or nervousness. A correlation between the DT and the total ESAS score was observed (Pearson correlation = 0.46). The ten items of the ESAS together explained 46% of the variability in DT scores. The depression and nervousness ESAS items were significant predictors of DT score (p < 0.01 for both items). However, once the two psychosocial items, depression and nervousness, were removed from the total ESAS score, leaving only physical symptoms and the sleeplessness item, the predictive power of the model decreased to R² = 0.12.ConclusionsThe prevalence of distress in lung cancer patients is high. The DT appears to discriminate between physical and emotional distress. This easily measured score may determine which patients require further intervention for emotional distress.

Transparency of outcome reporting and trial registration of randomized controlled trials in top psychosomatic and behavioral health journals: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE The extent that randomized controlled trials (RCTs) accurately reflect intervention effectiveness depends on the completeness and accuracy of published results. A previous study found that only 40% of 63 RCTs published in top behavioral health journals in 2008-2009 clearly declared primary and secondary outcomes and only 21% were registered. The objective of this study was to conduct a five-year follow-up to assess outcome reporting clarity, proportion of registered trials, and adequacy of outcome registration in RCTs in top behavioral health journals. METHOD Eligible studies were RCTs published in Annals of Behavioral Medicine, Health Psychology, Journal of Psychosomatic Research, and Psychosomatic Medicine from January 2013 to October 2014. RESULTS Of 76 RCT publications reviewed, only 25 (32.9%) adequately declared primary or secondary outcomes, whereas 51 (67.1%) had multiple primary outcomes or did not define outcomes. Of the 76 trials, 40 (52.6%) had been registered. Only 3 studies registered a single primary outcome and time point of assessment prior to enrolling patients, and registered and published outcomes were discrepant in 1 of the 3 studies. No studies were adequately registered as per Standard Protocol Items: Recommendation for Interventional Trials guidelines. Compared to 5 years prior, the proportion of published trials with adequate outcome declaration decreased from 39.7% to 32.9% (p=0.514). The proportion of registered trials increased from 20.6% to 52.6% (p<0.001). CONCLUSION The quality of published outcome declarations and trial registrations remains largely inadequate. Greater attention to trial registration and outcome definition in published reports is needed.

There are no randomized controlled trials that support the United States Preventive Services Task Force guideline on screening for depression in primary care: a systematic review

BackgroundThe United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends screening adults for depression in primary care settings when staff-assisted depression management programs are available. This recommendation, however, is based on evidence from depression management programs conducted with patients already identified as depressed, even though screening is intended to identify depressed patients not already recognized or treated. The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate whether there is evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that depression screening benefits patients in primary care, using an explicit definition of screening.MethodsWe re-evaluated RCTs included in the 2009 USPSTF evidence review on depression screening, including only trials that compared depression outcomes between screened and non-screened patients and met the following three criteria: determined patient eligibility and randomized prior to screening; excluded patients already diagnosed with a recent episode of depression or already being treated for depression; and provided the same level of depression treatment services to patients identified as depressed in the screening and non-screening trial arms. We also reviewed studies included in a recent Cochrane systematic review, but not the USPSTF review; conducted a focused search to update the USPSTF review; and reviewed trial registries.ResultsOf the nine RCTs included in the USPSTF review, four fulfilled none of three criteria for a test of depression screening, four fulfilled one of three criteria, and one fulfilled two of three criteria. There were two additional RCTs included only in the Cochrane review, and each fulfilled one of three criteria. No eligible RCTs were found via the updated review.ConclusionsThe USPSTF recommendation to screen adults for depression in primary care settings when staff-assisted depression management programs are available is not supported by evidence from any RCTs that are directly relevant to the recommendation. The USPSTF should re-evaluate this recommendation.Please see related article: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/12/14RegistrationPROSPERO (#CRD42013004276)