RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this paper is to review the literature on the impact of antidepressants on depressive symptom severity, quality of life (QoL), morbidity, and mortality in patients with heart failure (HF). METHODS: Following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, studies published from December 1969 to December 2019 that pertain to depression and HF were identified through the use of the PubMed and PsycINFO databases, using the keywords: 'antidepressant*' and 'heart failure.' Two authors independently conducted a focused analysis and reached a final consensus on 17 studies that met the specific selection criteria and passed the study quality checks. RESULTS: Studies varied in types of antidepressants used as well as in study designs. Ten studies were analyzed for the impact of antidepressant medications on depressive symptom severity. Five of these were randomized controlled trials (RCTs), out of which sertraline and paroxetine showed a significant reduction in depressive symptoms despite the small samples utilized. Four of the 17 studies addressed QoL as part of their outcomes showing no difference for escitalopram (RCT), significantly greater improvements for paroxetine controlled release (RCT), statistical significance for sertraline compared to control (pilot study), and showing significant improvement before and after treatment (open-label trial) for nefazodone. Thirteen of the 17 studies included measures of morbidity and mortality. Although early analyses have pointed to an association of antidepressant use and mortality particularly with fluoxetine, the reviewed studies showed no increase in mortality for antidepressants, and secondary analyses showed improved mortality in patients who achieved remission of depressive symptoms. CONCLUSION: Out of the various antidepressants studied, which included sertraline, paroxetine, escitalopram, citalopram, bupropion, nefazodone, and nortriptyline, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors seem to be a safe treatment option for patients with depression and HF. However, due to the variety of study designs as well as the mixed results for each antidepressant, more information for reducing depression severity, morbidity, and mortality and improving quality of life in patients with HF should be examined using robust large sample RCTs.
RESUMO
Objective: This paper sought to identify the instruments used to measure depression in heart failure (HF) and elucidate the impact of treatment interventions on depression in HF. Methods: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines were followed. Studies published from 1988 to 2018 covering depression and HF were identified through the review of the PubMed and PsycINFO databases using the keywords: "depres*" AND "heart failure." Two authors independently conducted a focused analysis, identifying 27 studies that met the specific selection criteria and passed the study quality checks. Results: Patient-reported questionnaires were more commonly adopted than clinician-rated questionnaires, including the Beck Depression Inventory, the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Six common interventions were observed: antidepressant medications, collaborative care, psychotherapy, exercise, education, and other nonpharmacological interventions. Except for paroxetine, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors failed to show a significant difference from placebo. However, the collaborative care model including the use of antidepressants showed a significant decrease in PHQ-9 score after one year. All of the psychotherapy studies included a variation of cognitive behavioral therapy and patients showed significant improvements. The evidence was mixed for exercise, education, and other nonpharmacological interventions. Conclusion: This study suggests which types of interventions are more effective in addressing depression in heart failure patients.
RESUMO
Objective: This paper sought to review the impact of depression in patients with comorbid medical problems, the importance of bridging the gap between inpatient and outpatient care for medical inpatients with depression (especially for organizations that treat patients in both settings), and the elements necessary to implement a pilot for an outpatient Collaborative Care Management program for patients with depression following medical admissions. Taken into account is the presence of new billing mechanisms and potential cost offsets. Methods: The literature referenced in this paper was identified through a search of online databases, including PubMed and Google Scholar. The data used to analyze cost were drawn from national, publicly available sources, such as the Kaiser Family Foundation, Bureau of Labor Statistics, and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. Results: Collaborative care is an evidence-based intervention for depression that can aid with successful transition of care as patients move from the inpatient to the outpatient setting. It can be considered cost-effective when treating a panel of patients that falls below the recommended caseload for a single case manager (i.e., 19-46 billed encounters, depending on the payer mix), particularly when considering the savings from a reduced length of stay associated with well-controlled depressive symptoms. Conclusion: Organizations should consider implementing collaborative care management for patients with depression to improve depression outcomes, reduce costs, and prepare themselves for a health financing environment that rewards value.