Spontaneous coronary artery dissection in association with cabergoline therapy.

Spontaneous coronary artery dissection (SCAD) is a rare but increasingly recognised cause of acute coronary syndrome. While numerous risk factors are associated with SCAD, one potential cause is coronary artery vasospasm. The use of cabergoline-an ergot derivative and dopamine agonist that may induce vasospasm-has been associated with SCAD in one other case report worldwide. Here, we describe SCAD in a 37-year-old woman on long-term cabergoline therapy with no other cardiac risk factors. Cabergoline-induced SCAD should be considered in patients presenting with an acute coronary syndrome who are treated with this medication.

Collaborative care versus screening and follow-up for patients with diabetes and depressive symptoms: results of a primary care-based comparative effectiveness trial.

OBJECTIVE: Depressive symptoms are common and, when coexisting with diabetes, worsen outcomes and increase health care costs. We evaluated a nurse case-manager-based collaborative primary care team model to improve depressive symptoms in diabetic patients. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a controlled implementation trial in four nonmetropolitan primary care networks. Eligible patients had type 2 diabetes and screened positive for depressive symptoms, based on a Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ) score of ≥10. Patients were allocated using an "on-off" monthly time series. Intervention consisted of case-managers working 1:1 with patients to deliver individualized care. The main outcome was improvement in PHQ scores at 12 months. A concurrent cohort of 71 comparable patients was used as nonscreened usual care control subjects. RESULTS: Of 1,924 patients screened, 476 (25%) had a PHQ score >10. Of these, 95 were allocated to intervention and 62 to active control. There were no baseline differences between groups: mean age was 57.8 years, 55% were women, and the mean PHQ score was 14.5 (SD 3.7). Intervention patients had greater 12-month improvements in PHQ (7.3 [SD 5.6]) compared with active-control subjects (5.2 [SD 5.7], P = 0.015). Recovery of depressive symptoms (i.e., PHQ reduced by 50%) was greater among intervention patients (61% vs. 44%, P = 0.03). Compared with trial patients, nonscreened control subjects had significantly less improvement at 12 months in the PHQ score (3.2 [SD 4.9]) and lower rates of recovery (24%, P < 0.05 for both). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with type 2 diabetes who screened positive for depressive symptoms, collaborative care improved depressive symptoms, but physician notification and follow-up was also a clinically effective initial strategy compared with usual care.

Controlled trial of a collaborative primary care team model for patients with diabetes and depression: rationale and design for a comprehensive evaluation.

BACKGROUND: When depression accompanies diabetes, it complicates treatment, portends worse outcomes and increases health care costs. A collaborative care case-management model, previously tested in an urban managed care organization in the US, achieved significant reduction of depressive symptoms, improved diabetes disease control and patient-reported outcomes, and saved money. While impressive, these findings need to be replicated and extended to other healthcare settings. Our objective is to comprehensively evaluate a collaborative care model for comorbid depression and type 2 diabetes within a Canadian primary care setting. METHODS/DESIGN: We initiated the TeamCare model in four Primary Care Networks in Northern Alberta. The intervention involves a nurse care manager guiding patient-centered care with family physicians and consultant physician specialists to monitor progress and develop tailored care plans. Patients eligible for the intervention will be identified using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 as a screen for depressive symptoms. Care managers will then guide patients through three phases: 1) improving depressive symptoms, 2) improving blood glucose, blood pressure and cholesterol, and 3) improving lifestyle behaviors. We will employ the RE-AIM framework for a comprehensive and mixed-methods approach to our evaluation. Effectiveness will be assessed using a controlled "on-off" trial design, whereby eligible patients would be alternately enrolled in the TeamCare intervention or usual care on a monthly basis. All patients will be assessed at baseline, 6 and 12 months. Our primary analyses will be based on changes in two outcomes: depressive symptoms, and a multivariable, scaled marginal model for the combined outcome of global disease control (i.e., A1c, systolic blood pressure, LDL cholesterol). Our planned enrolment of 168 patients will provide greater than 80% power to observe clinically important improvements in all measured outcomes. Direct costing of all intervention components and measurement of all health care utilization using linked administrative databases will be used to determine the cost-effectiveness of the intervention relative to usual care. DISCUSSION: Our comprehensive evaluation will generate evidence to reliability, effectiveness and sustainability of this collaborative care model for patients with chronic diseases and depression. TRIALS REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01328639.

The clinical effect and tolerability of ezetimibe in high-risk patients managed in a specialty cardiovascular risk reduction clinic.

INTRODUCTION: Ezetimibe (EZ) is a selective cholesterol absorption inhibitor approved for use in Canada. The effect and tolerability of EZ among patients was evaluated in the clinical setting of a specialty cardiovascular risk reduction clinic at the University of Alberta Hospital, Edmonton, Alberta. patients and METHODS: All patients 18 years of age or older who were prescribed EZ were included, unless they failed to take EZ for a minimum of two weeks, did not have baseline and on-EZ low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels, or had concomitant lipid-lowering drugs or dosages changed within one month of starting EZ. RESULTS: Eighty-four patients (mean age 57.9 years) were included. By Framingham risk calculation, 71.4% were found to be high-risk patients, 13.1% moderate-risk patients and 15.5% low-risk patients; 66.7% of patients had prior cardiovascular events. On EZ, the mean reductions were: total cholesterol level 1.11 mmol/L (16.5%); LDL-C level 1.01 mmol/L (22.3%); high-density lipoprotein cholesterol level 0.06 mmol/L (4.6%); and ratio of total cholesterol level to high-density lipoprotein cholesterol level 0.68 mmol/L (12.8%); all were statistically significant (P<0.001). Results were similar when stratified by primary (n=28) versus secondary (n=56) prevention. Patients on EZ monotherapy (n=34) had mean LDL-C reductions of 1.03 mmol/L (20.5%) compared with 1.19 mmol/L (30.1%) or 0.95 mmol/L (22.5%), where EZ was added to low-dose or high-dose statins (P<0.01 for all). On EZ, 30 patients (35.7%) achieved previously unattainable target LDL-C levels. Four patients discontinued the drug due to side effects. CONCLUSIONS: EZ is safe and effective in high-risk patients treated in the clinical setting of a cardiovascular risk reduction clinic. A mean LDL-C reduction of 1 mmol/L (20% to 30%) in all patient subgroups is consistent with previous clinical trial results. The significant reduction in LDL-C (mean 22.5%) observed in the EZ plus high-dose statin subgroup provides clinical evidence for use of this medication beyond published studies.