Depressive Symptoms and Perceptions of ED Care in Patients Evaluated for Acute Coronary Syndrome.

INTRODUCTION: Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) develops in 1 out of 8 survivors of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) events, and these persons have a doubling of risk for recurrent ACS and mortality. Overcrowding in the emergency department during ACS evaluation has been associated with increased risk for PTSD, and depressed patients have been found to be particularly vulnerable. Little is known about the mechanisms by which overcrowding increases PTSD risk in depressed patients. Our aim was to evaluate one possible mechanism, patient perception of crowding and care, in depressed and nondepressed ED patients evaluated for ACS. METHODS: We enrolled 912 participants in the REactions to Acute Care and Hospitalization study, an ongoing observational cohort study assessing patients evaluated for ACS. Participants completed the Emergency Department Perceptions questionnaire. Depressive symptoms were screened using the Personal Health Questionnaire Depression Scale. Objective ED crowding was calculated using the Emergency Department Work Index (EDWIN). RESULTS: EDWIN scores did not significantly differ between groups. Although perceptions of ED crowding did not differ between groups, depressed patients perceived the emergency department as more stressful [t = 4.45, P < .001] and perceived poorer care [t = 3.03, P = .003]. Multiple regression modeling found a significant interaction between EDWIN scores and depression, predicting participants' perception of stress in the emergency department (F[7,904] = 7.93, P < .001). DISCUSSION: We found that depressed patients experienced the emergency department as more stressful as objectively measured crowding increased. Our study highlights the complex interplay between cardiovascular disease and mental health in impacting patient health outcomes in the emergency department.

Using a multistakeholder collaboratory and patient surveys to inform the conduct of personalized (N-of-1) trials.

OBJECTIVE: Personalized trials have the potential to improve the precision of treatment selection and foster patient involvement in clinical decision making. Little is known about the attitudes of patients with multimorbidities. To address this, stakeholders designed and conducted a national survey that determined general attitudes and features of personalized trials that may increase their use among patients with multimorbidities in clinical and research practice. METHOD: A multistakeholder collaboratory of patients, clinicians, scientists, methodologists, statisticians, and research disseminators designed a survey to determine the conditions, symptoms, and design attributes most applicable to personalized trials according to patients. A sample of U.S. patients with two or more prespecified personalized-trial-amenable chronic conditions completed the online survey. RESULTS: Multimorbid participants (N = 501; M age = 56.1 years) showed that some conditions, symptoms or use cases for personalized trials include pain (57.6%), hypertension (38.8%), diabetes (28.8%), sleep problems (27.4%), and depression (23.0%). Overall, 82.0% of the participants with multimorbidities were interested in participating in personalized trials. The percentage that were interested varied by trial attributes, including physician involvement (86.4%), patient-driven treatment selection (88.0%), clinician blinding (59.2%), placebo treatment options (57.5%), and out-of-pocket costs (41.8%). CONCLUSION: Participants with multimorbidities identified prevalent use cases that are suited to personalized trials. Participants also identified design features of such trials, including patient-driven treatment selection, active comparators, and nonblinding. This study demonstrates that eliciting input from a collaboratory and patients with multimorbidities can inform research priorities for this rapidly growing patient population and increase adoption by researchers and clinicians alike. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Personal preferences for Personalised Trials among patients with chronic diseases: an empirical Bayesian analysis of a conjoint survey.

OBJECTIVE: To describe individual patient preferences for Personalised Trials and to identify factors and conditions associated with patient preferences. DESIGN: Each participant was presented with 18 conjoint questions via an online survey. Each question provided two choices of Personalised Trials that were defined by up to eight attributes, including treatment types, clinician involvement, study logistics and trial burden on a patient. SETTING: Online survey of adults with at least two common chronic conditions in the USA. PARTICIPANTS: A nationally representative sample of 501 individuals were recruited from the Chronic Illness Panel by Harris Poll Online. Participants were recruited from several sources, including emails, social media and telephone recruitment of the target population. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The choice of Personalised Trial design that the participant preferred with each conjoint question. RESULTS: There was large variability in participants' preferences for the design of Personalised Trials. On average, they preferred certain attributes, such as a short time commitment and no cost. Notably, a population-level analysis correctly predicted 62% of the conjoint responses. An empirical Bayesian analysis of the conjoint data, which supported the estimation of individual-level preferences, improved the accuracy to 86%. Based on estimates of individual-level preferences, patients with chronic pain preferred a long study duration (p≤0.001). Asthma patients were less averse to participation burden in terms of data-collection frequency than patients with other conditions (p=0.002). Patients with hypertension were more cost-sensitive (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: These analyses provide a framework for elucidating individual-level preferences when implementing novel patient-centred interventions. The data showed that patient preference in Personalised Trials is highly variable, suggesting that individual differences must be accounted for when marketing Personalised Trials. These results have implications for advancing precise interventions in Personalised Trials by indicating when rigorous scientific principles, such as frequent monitoring, is feasible in a substantial subset of patients.

Effect of Depression Screening After Acute Coronary Syndromes on Quality of Life: The CODIACS-QoL Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and elevated depressive symptoms are at increased risk for recurrent cardiovascular events and mortality, worse quality of life, and higher health care costs. These observational findings prompted multiple scientific panels to advise universal depression screening in survivors of ACS prior to evidence from randomized screening trials. Objective: To determine whether systematically screening for depression in survivors of ACS improves quality of life and depression compared with usual care. Design, Setting, and Participants: A 3-group multisite randomized trial enrolled 1500 patients with ACS from 4 health care systems between November 1, 2013, and March 31, 2017, with follow-up ending July 31, 2018. Patients were eligible if they had been hospitalized for ACS in the previous 2 to 12 months and had no prior history of depression. All analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis. Interventions: Patients with ACS were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to receive (1) systematic depression screening using the 8-item Patient Health Questionnaire, with notification of primary care clinicians and provision of centralized, patient-preference, stepped depression care for those with positive screening results (8-item Patient Health Questionnaire score ≥10; screen, notify, and treat, n = 499); (2) systematic depression screening, with notification of primary care clinicians for those with positive screening results (screen and notify, n = 501); and (3) usual care (no screening, n = 500). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was change in quality-adjusted life-years. The secondary outcome was depression-free days. Adverse effects and mortality were assessed by patient interview and hospital records. Results: A total of 1500 patients (424 women and 1076 men; mean [SD] age, 65.9 [11.5] years) were randomized in the 18-month trial. Only 71 of 1000 eligible survivors of ACS (7.1%) had elevated 8-item Patient Health Questionnaire scores indicating depressive symptoms at screening. There were no differences in mean (SD) change in quality-adjusted life-years (screen, notify and treat, -0.06 [0.20]; screen and notify, -0.06 [0.20]; no screen, -0.06 [0.18]; P = .98) or cumulative mean (SD) depression-free days (screen, notify and treat, 343.1 [179.0] days; screen and notify, 351.3 [175.0] days; no screen, 339.0 [176.6] days; P = .63). Harms including death, bleeding, or sleep difficulties did not differ among groups. Conclusions and Relevance: In patients with ACS without a history of depression, systematic depression screening with or without providing depression treatment did not alter quality-adjusted life-years, depression-free days, or harms. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01993017.

Rationale, design, and baseline data for a multicenter randomized clinical trial comparing depression screening strategies after acute coronary syndrome: The comparison of depression identification after acute Coronary Syndromes-Quality of Life and Cost Outcomes (CODIACS-QOL) trial.

BACKGROUND: Elevated depressive symptoms among survivors of acute coronary syndromes (ACS) confer recurrent cardiovascular events and mortality, worse quality of life, and higher healthcare costs. While multiple scientific groups advise routine depression screening for ACS survivors, no randomized trials exist to inform this screening recommendation. We aimed to assess the effect of screening for depression on change in quality of life over 18 months among ACS patients. METHODS: The Comparison of Depression Identification after Acute Coronary Syndrome on Quality of Life and Cost Outcomes (CODIACS-QoL) trial is a pragmatic, 3-arm trial that randomized ACS patients to 1) systematic depression screening using the 8-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-8) and if positive screen (PHQ-8 ≥ 10), notification of primary care providers (PCPs) and invitation to participate in centralized, patient-preference, stepped depression care (Screen, Notify, and Treat, N = 499); 2) systematic depression screening and PCP notification only (Screen and Notify, N = 501); and 3) usual care (No Screen, N = 500). Adults hospitalized for ACS in the previous 2-12 months without prior history of depression were eligible for participation. Key outcomes will be quality-adjusted life years (primary), cost of health care utilization, and depression-free days across 18 months. RESULTS: A total of 1500 patients were randomized in the CODIACS-QOL trial (28.3% women; 16.3% Hispanic; mean age 65.9 (11.5) years). Only 7% of ACS survivors had elevated depressive symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Using a novel randomization schema and pragmatic design principles, the CODIACS-QoL trial achieved its enrollment target. Eventual results of this trial will inform future depression screening recommendations in cardiac patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01993017).