Vanessa C. Delisle

The Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network (SPIN) Cohort: protocol for a cohort multiple randomised controlled trial (cmRCT) design to support trials of psychosocial and rehabilitation interventions in a rare disease context

Introduction Psychosocial and rehabilitation interventions are increasingly used to attenuate disability and improve health-related quality of life (HRQL) in chronic diseases, but are typically not available for patients with rare diseases. Conducting rigorous, adequately powered trials of these interventions for patients with rare diseases is difficult. The Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network (SPIN) is an international collaboration of patient organisations, clinicians and researchers. The aim of SPIN is to develop a research infrastructure to test accessible, low-cost self-guided online interventions to reduce disability and improve HRQL for people living with the rare disease systemic sclerosis (SSc or scleroderma). Once tested, effective interventions will be made accessible through patient organisations partnering with SPIN. Methods and analysis SPIN will employ the cohort multiple randomised controlled trial (cmRCT) design, in which patients consent to participate in a cohort for ongoing data collection. The aim is to recruit 1500–2000 patients from centres across the world within a period of 5 years (2013–2018). Eligible participants are persons ≥18 years of age with a diagnosis of SSc. In addition to baseline medical data, participants will complete patient-reported outcome measures every 3 months. Upon enrolment in the cohort, patients will consent to be contacted in the future to participate in intervention research and to allow their data to be used for comparison purposes for interventions tested with other cohort participants. Once interventions are developed, patients from the cohort will be randomly selected and offered interventions as part of pragmatic RCTs. Outcomes from patients offered interventions will be compared with outcomes from trial-eligible patients who are not offered the interventions. Ethics and dissemination The use of the cmRCT design, the development of self-guided online interventions and partnerships with patient organisations will allow SPIN to develop, rigourously test and effectively disseminate psychosocial and rehabilitation interventions for people with SSc.

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.

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.

Revisiting Gender Differences in Somatic Symptoms of Depression: Much Ado about Nothing?

Background Women have a higher prevalence of Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) and report more severe depressive symptoms than men. Several studies have suggested that gender differences in depression may occur because women report higher levels of somatic symptoms than men. Those studies, however, have not controlled or matched for non-somatic symptoms. The objective of this study was to examine if women report relatively more somatic symptoms than men matched on cognitive/affective symptoms. Methods Male and female patients receiving treatment for MDD in outpatient psychiatric clinics in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, USA were matched on Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II) cognitive/affective symptom scores. Male and female BDI-II somatic symptom scores were compared using independent samples 2-tailed t-tests. Results Of 472 male and 1,026 female patients, there were 470 male patients (mean age = 40.1 years, SD = 15.1) and 470 female patients (mean age = 43.1 years, SD = 17.2) successfully matched on BDI-II cognitive/affective symptom scores. Somatic symptoms accounted for 35% of total BDI-II scores for male patients versus 38% for matched female patients. Female patients had somatic symptom scores on average 1.3 points higher than males (p<.001), equivalent to 4% of the total BDI-II scores of female patients. Only 5% of male patients and 7% of female patients scored 2 or higher on all BDI-II somatic symptom items. Conclusions Gender differences in somatic scores were very small. Thus, differences in the experience and reporting of somatic symptoms would not likely explain gender differences in depression rates and symptom severity.

The Influence of Somatic Symptoms on Beck Depression Inventory Scores in Hospitalized Postmyocardial Infarction Patients

Objective: The Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) has been used more than any other self-report questionnaire in research on depression in cardiovascular disease. However, no studies have examined whether BDI scores may be influenced by somatic symptoms common after myocardial infarction (Ml) that may overlap with symptoms of depression. The objective of this study was to examine whether BDI scores of post-MI patients may be influenced by somatic symptoms that commonly occur after MI, but may not be related to depression. Method: Post-MI patients and psychiatric outpatients were matched on BDI cognitive-affective symptom scores, sex, and age, and their BDI somatic symptom scores were compared using independent samples t tests. Results: Somatic symptoms accounted for 57% of BDI total scores for 296 post-MI patients (mean total BDI = 8.8), compared with 50% for 296 matched psychiatric outpatients (mean total BDI = 7.6). Overall, BDI somatic scores of post-MI patients were 1.3 points higher than for psychiatric outpatients (95% CI 0.68 to 1.82; P < 0.001), equivalent to 14% of total scores of post-MI patients. Conclusions: The relative influence of somatic symptoms on BDI total scores was higher for post-MI patients than for psychiatric outpatients matched on cognitive-affective scores, sex, and age. This finding stands in contrast to that from a previous study that used similar methods and sample comparisons and found that post-MI and psychiatric outpatients did not differ in their endorsement of somatic symptoms on the BDI-II. The BDI-II may be preferable to the BDI in post-MI patients.

Psychosocial Aspects of Scleroderma.

Patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc; also called scleroderma) have to cope with not only the physical impacts of the disease but also the emotional and social consequences of living with the condition. Because there is no cure for SSc, improving quality of life is a primary focus of treatment and an important clinical challenge. This article summarizes significant problems faced by patients with SSc, including depression, anxiety, fatigue, sleep disruption, pain, pruritus, body image dissatisfaction, and sexual dysfunction, and describes options to help patients cope with the consequences of the disease.

Perceived Benefits and Factors that Influence the Ability to Establish and Maintain Patient Support Groups in Rare Diseases: A Scoping Review

BackgroundSupport groups are an important resource for many people living with rare diseases. The perceived benefits of participating in support groups for people with rare diseases and factors that may influence the ability to successfully establish and maintain these groups are not well understood. Thus, the objective of this scoping review was to provide a mapping of the available evidence on the (1) benefits or perceived benefits of participating in rare disease support groups and (2) barriers and facilitators of establishing and maintaining these groups.MethodsCINAHL and PubMed were searched from January 2000 to August 2015, with no language restrictions. Publications that described the benefits or perceived benefits of participating in rare disease support groups or the barriers and facilitators of establishing and maintaining them were eligible for inclusion. Two investigators independently evaluated titles/abstracts and full-text publications for eligibility, and extracted data from each included publication.ResultsTen publications were included in the scoping review. There was no trial evidence on support group benefits. All ten publications reported on the perceived benefits of participating in rare disease support groups. Three reported on barriers and facilitators of establishing and maintaining them. Overall, seven different perceived benefits of participating in rare disease support groups were identified: (1) meeting and befriending other people with the same rare disease and similar experiences; (2) learning about the disease and related treatments; (3) giving and receiving emotional support; (4) having a place to speak openly about the disease and one’s feelings; (5) learning coping skills; (6) feeling empowered and hopeful; and (7) advocating to improve healthcare for other rare disease patients. Several facilitators (e.g., meeting via teleconference) and barriers (e.g., getting patients and/or family members to lead the group) of establishing and maintaining these groups were identified.ConclusionsRare disease support groups are an important source of emotional and practical support for many patients. There is no trial evidence on the benefits of these groups and limited evidence on the perceived benefits and barriers and facilitators to establishing and maintaining them.

Using Optimal Test Assembly Methods for Shortening Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: Development and Validation of the Cochin Hand Function Scale-6: A Scleroderma Patient-Centered Intervention Network Cohort Study.

To develop and validate a short form of the Cochin Hand Function Scale (CHFS), which measures hand disability, for use in systemic sclerosis, using objective criteria and reproducible techniques.

An Assessment of the Measurement Equivalence of English and French Versions of the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression (CES-D) Scale in Systemic Sclerosis

Objectives Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression (CES-D) Scale scores in English- and French-speaking Canadian systemic sclerosis (SSc) patients are commonly pooled in analyses, but no studies have evaluated the metric equivalence of the English and French CES-D. The study objective was to examine the metric equivalence of the CES-D in English- and French-speaking SSc patients. Methods The CES-D was completed by 1007 English-speaking and 248 French-speaking patients from the Canadian Scleroderma Research Group Registry. 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 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 CES-D items, including items 3 (Blues), 10 (Fearful), and 11 (Sleep). Prior to accounting for DIF, French-speaking patients had 0.08 of a standard deviation (SD) lower latent scores for the Positive factor (95% confidence interval [CI]−0.25 to 0.08) and 0.09 SD higher scores (95% CI−0.07 to 0.24) for the Negative factor than English-speaking patients. After DIF correction, there was no change on the Positive factor and a non-significant increase of 0.04 SD on the Negative factor for French-speaking patients (difference = 0.13 SD, 95% CI−0.03 to 0.28). Conclusions The English and French versions of the CES-D, despite minor DIF on several items, are substantively equivalent and can be used in studies that combine data from English- and French-speaking Canadian SSc patients.