Effects of escitalopram in prevention of depression in patients with acute coronary syndrome (DECARD)

Feeling blue to seeing red: A case of escitalopram-induced epistaxis

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors are associated with an increased risk of bleeding, most commonly intracranial and gastric bleeding, especially in conjunction with anticoagulant use. Although uncommon, escitalopram is associated with epistaxis in a dose-dependent manner. Dosage reduction may be sufficient in management.

Antidepressants for the prevention of depression following first-episode psychosis (ADEPP): study protocol for a multi-centre, double-blind, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Depressive episodes are common after first-episode psychosis (FEP), affecting more than 40% of people, adding to individual burden, poor outcomes, and healthcare costs. If the risks of developing depression were lower, this could have a beneficial effect on morbidity and mortality, as well as improving outcomes. Sertraline is a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor and a common first-line medication for the treatment of depression in adults. It has been shown to be safe when co-prescribed with antipsychotic medication, and there is evidence that it is an effective treatment for depression in established schizophrenia. We present a protocol for a multi-centre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled clinical trial called ADEPP that aims to investigate the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of sertraline in preventing depression after FEP.

METHODS

The recruitment target is 452 participants between the ages of 18 and 65 years who are within 12 months of treatment initiation for FEP. Having provided informed consent, participants will be randomised to receive either 50 mg of sertraline daily or matched placebo for 6 months, in addition to treatment as usual. The primary outcome measure will be a comparison of the number of new cases of depression between the treatment and placebo arms over the 6-month intervention phase. Secondary outcomes include suicidal behaviour, anxiety, rates of relapse, functional outcome, quality of life, and resource use.

DISCUSSION

The ADEPP trial will test whether the addition of sertraline following FEP is a clinically useful, acceptable, and cost-effective way of improving outcomes following FEP.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN12682719 registration date 24/11/2020.

Longer term benefits of exercise and escitalopram in the treatment of anxiety in patients with coronary heart disease: Six month follow-up of the UNWIND randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Anxiety is a common comorbidity in patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) and is associated with worse prognosis. However, effective treatment for anxiety in CHD patients is uncertain. The UNWIND randomized clinical trial showed that 12-week treatment of escitalopram was better than exercise training or placebo in reducing anxiety in anxious CHD patients. The longer-term benefits of treatment for anxiety are not known.

METHODS

Patients were randomized to 12 weeks of Escitalopram (up to 20 mg), Exercise (3 times/wk), or placebo pill. At the conclusion of treatment, participants were followed for 6-months to determine the persistence of benefit on the primary anxiety endpoint assessed by the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale-Anxiety scale (HADS-A) and to assess the effects of treatment on major adverse cardiac events over a follow-up period of up to 6 years.

RESULTS

Of the 128 participants initially randomized, 120 (94%) were available for follow-up. Participants randomized to the Escitalopram condition exhibited lower HADS-A scores (3.9 [3.1, 4.7]) compared to those randomized to Exercise (5.5 [4.6, 6.3]) (P = .007) and Placebo (5.3 [4.1, 6.5]) (P = .053). Over a median follow-up of 3.2 years (IQR: 2.3, 4.5), there were 29 adverse events but no significant between-group differences.

CONCLUSION

In the UNWIND trial, 12 weeks of escitalopram treatment was effective in reducing anxiety. These beneficial effects were sustained for 6 months posttreatment. Although moderate or vigorous physical activity has a number of health benefits, exercise was not an effective treatment for anxiety in patients with CHD.

Escitalopram-induced epistaxis: A case report

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are a group of drugs used to treat various psychiatric disorders such as major depression, generalised anxiety, and obsessive-compulsive syndrome. Although generally safe, SSRIs can lead to various adverse effects, including an increased risk of bleeding due to their effect on platelet activation and aggregation. Unexpected bleeding can occur at different sites, in people of different age groups, and in combination with other medications. The commonly reported risk factors associated with medication-induced bleeding in patients with mental disorders include co-administration of other drugs and liver cirrhosis or failure. We report a relatively less common adverse effect of SSRIs. This is the case of a Middle Eastern man, known to have seasonal allergic rhinitis, who developed self-limiting epistaxis following the use of escitalopram for a depressive disorder. Since a history of seasonal allergy can precipitate bleeding when using SSRIs, risk factors for bleeding associated with SSRIs, excluding the common causes, should be explored for better management and prevention.

Effect of Exercise, Escitalopram, or Placebo on Anxiety in Patients With Coronary Heart Disease: The Understanding the Benefits of Exercise and Escitalopram in Anxious Patients With Coronary Heart Disease (UNWIND) Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Anxiety is common among patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) and is associated with worse health outcomes; however, effective treatment for anxiety in patients with CHD is uncertain.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether exercise and escitalopram are better than placebo in reducing symptoms of anxiety as measured by the Hospital Anxiety and Depression-Anxiety Subscale (HADS-A) and in improving CHD risk biomarkers.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This randomized clinical trial was conducted between January 2016 and May 2020 in a tertiary care teaching hospital in the US and included 128 outpatients with stable CHD and a diagnosed anxiety disorder or a HADS-A score of 8 or higher who were older than 40 years, sedentary, and not currently receiving mental health treatment.

INTERVENTIONS

Twelve weeks of aerobic exercise 3 times per week at an intensity of 70% to 85% heart rate reserve, escitalopram (up to 20 mg per day), or placebo pill equivalent.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was HADS-A score. CHD biomarkers included heart rate variability, baroreflex sensitivity, and flow-mediated dilation, along with 24-hour urinary catecholamines.

RESULTS

The study included 128 participants. The mean (SD) age was 64.6 (9.6) years, and 37 participants (29%) were women. Participants randomized to the exercise group and escitalopram group reported greater reductions in HADS-A (exercise, -4.0; 95% CI, -4.7 to -3.2; escitalopram, -5.7; 95% CI, -6.4 to -5.0) compared with those randomized to placebo (-3.5; 95% CI, -4.5 to -2.4; P = .03); participants randomized to escitalopram reported less anxiety compared with those randomized to exercise (-1.67; 95% CI, -2.68 to -0.66; P = .002). Significant postintervention group differences in 24-hour urinary catecholamines were found (exercise z score = 0.05; 95% CI, -0.2 to 0.3; escitalopram z score = -0.24; 95% CI, -0.4 to 0; placebo z score = 0.36; 95% CI, 0 to 0.7), with greater reductions in the exercise group and escitalopram group compared with the placebo group (F1,127 = 4.93; P = .01) and greater reductions in the escitalopram group compared with the exercise group (F1,127 = 4.37; P = .04). All groups achieved comparable but small changes in CHD biomarkers, with no differences between treatment groups.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Treatment of anxiety with escitalopram was safe and effective for reducing anxiety in patients with CHD. However, the beneficial effects of exercise on anxiety symptoms were less consistent. Exercise and escitalopram did not improve CHD biomarkers of risk, which should prompt further investigation of these interventions on clinical outcomes in patients with anxiety and CHD.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02516332.

From Heartbreak to Heart Disease: A Narrative Review on Depression as an Adjunct to Cardiovascular Disease

Patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD) commonly have subclinical depression and are often delayed in their diagnosis. Literature suggests an increased association of depression and adverse cardiovascular events like myocardial infarction and heart failure. Prevalence of depression in developed countries is approximately 16.6%, and it confers higher cardiovascular mortality even after attrition bias and confounding factors are eliminated. Pharmacological and cognitive-behavioral therapy have been extensively studied, and are generally safe and effective in alleviating depressive symptoms in patients with CVD. However, their impact on cardiovascular outcomes is still unclear. Results of randomized controlled trials have shown antidepressants, especially selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, to be safe and effective for healing a "broken heart." This review outlines the prevalence of depression in patients with CVD, the pathophysiological mechanism causing cardiovascular events with depression, and a link between depression and CVD. There is a wealth of literature explaining the precursor of CVD in depression, and like all chronic diseases, inflammation seems to be the culprit in this case as well.

Prevention of depression in adults with long-term physical conditions

BACKGROUND

Major depression is one of the world's leading causes of disability in adults with long-term physical conditions compared to those without physical illness. This co-morbidity is associated with a negative prognosis in terms of increased morbidity and mortality rates, increased healthcare costs, decreased adherence to treatment regimens, and a substantial decline in quality of life. Therefore, preventing the onset of depressive episodes in adults with long-term physical conditions should be a global healthcare aim. In this review, primary or tertiary (in cases of preventing recurrences in those with a history of depression) prevention are the focus. While primary prevention aims at preventing the onset of depression, tertiary prevention comprises both preventing recurrences and prohibiting relapses. Tertiary prevention aims to address a depressive episode that might still be present, is about to subside, or has recently resolved. We included tertiary prevention in the case where the focus was preventing the onset of depression in those with a history of depression (preventing recurrences) but excluded it if it specifically focused on maintaining an condition or implementing rehabilitation services (relapse prevention). Secondary prevention of depression seeks to prevent the progression of depressive symptoms by early detection and treatment and may therefore be considered a 'treatment,' rather than prevention. We therefore exclude the whole spectrum of secondary prevention.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness, acceptability and tolerability of psychological or pharmacological interventions, in comparison to control conditions, in preventing depression in adults with long-term physical conditions; either before first ever onset of depressive symptoms (i.e. primary prevention) or before first onset of depressive symptoms in patients with a history of depression (i.e. tertiary prevention).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and two trials registries, up to 6 February 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of preventive psychological or pharmacological interventions, specifically targeting incidence of depression in comparison to treatment as usual (TAU), waiting list, attention/psychological placebo, or placebo. Participants had to be age 18 years or older, with at least one long-term physical condition, and no diagnosis of major depression at baseline (primary prevention). In addition, we included studies comprising mixed samples of patients with and without a history of depression, which explored tertiary prevention of recurrent depression. We excluded other tertiary prevention studies. We also excluded secondary preventive interventions. Primary outcomes included incidence of depression, tolerability, and acceptability. Secondary outcomes included severity of depression, cost-effectiveness and cost-utility.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 11 RCTs, with one trial on psychological interventions, and 10 trials on pharmacological interventions. Data analyses on the psychological intervention (problem-solving therapy compared to TAU) included 194 participants with age-related macular degeneration. Data analyses on pharmacological interventions included 837 participants comparing citalopram (one trial), escitalopram (three trials), a mixed sample of fluoxetine/nortriptyline (one trial), melatonin (one trial), milnacipran (one trial), and sertraline (three trials), each to placebo. Included types of long-term physical conditions were acute coronary syndrome (one trial), breast cancer (one trial), head and neck cancer (two trials), stroke (five trials), and traumatic brain injury (one trial). Psychological interventions Very low-certainty evidence of one study suggests that problem solving therapy may be slightly more effective than TAU in preventing the incidence of depression, immediately post-intervention (odds ratio (OR) 0.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.20 to 0.95; 194 participants). However, there may be little to no difference between groups at six months follow-up (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.38; 190 participants; one study; very low-certainty evidence). No data were available regarding incidence of depression after six months. Regarding acceptability (drop-outs due to any cause), slightly fewer drop-outs occurred in the TAU group immediately post-intervention (OR 5.21, 95% CI 1.11 to 24.40; 206 participants; low-certainty evidence). After six months, however, the groups did not differ (OR 1.67, 95% CI 0.58 to 4.77; 206 participants; low-certainty evidence). This study did not measure tolerability. Pharmacological interventions Post-intervention, compared to placebo, antidepressants may be beneficial in preventing depression in adults with different types of long-term physical conditions, but the evidence is very uncertain (OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.49; 814 participants; nine studies; I2 =0%; very low-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference between groups both immediately and at six months follow-up (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.08 to 2.46; 23 participants; one study; very low-certainty evidence) as well as at six to 12 months follow-up (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.23 to 2.82; 233 participants; three studies; I2 = 49%; very low-certainty evidence). There was very low-certainty evidence from five studies regarding the tolerability of the pharmacological intervention. A total of 669 adverse events were observed in 316 participants from the pharmacological intervention group, and 610 adverse events from 311 participants in the placebo group. There was very low-certainty evidence that drop-outs due to adverse events may be less frequent in the placebo group (OR 2.05, 95% CI 1.07 to 3.89; 561 participants; five studies; I2 = 0%). There was also very low-certainty evidence that drop-outs due to any cause may not differ between groups either post-intervention (OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.73; 962 participants; nine studies; I2 = 28%), or at six to 12 months (OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.86; 327 participants; three studies; I2 = 0%).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on evidence of very low certainty, our results may indicate the benefit of pharmacological interventions, during or directly after preventive treatment. Few trials examined short-term outcomes up to six months, nor the follow-up effects at six to 12 months, with studies suffering from great numbers of drop-outs and inconclusive results. Generalisation of results is limited as study populations and treatment regimes were very heterogeneous. Based on the results of this review, we conclude that for adults with long-term physical conditions, there is only very uncertain evidence regarding the implementation of any primary preventive interventions (psychological/pharmacological) for depression.

Psychological Health, Well-Being, and the Mind-Heart-Body Connection: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

As clinicians delivering health care, we are very good at treating disease but often not as good at treating the person. The focus of our attention has been on the specific physical condition rather than the patient as a whole. Less attention has been given to psychological health and how that can contribute to physical health and disease. However, there is now an increasing appreciation of how psychological health can contribute not only in a negative way to cardiovascular disease (CVD) but also in a positive way to better cardiovascular health and reduced cardiovascular risk. This American Heart Association scientific statement was commissioned to evaluate, synthesize, and summarize for the health care community knowledge to date on the relationship between psychological health and cardiovascular health and disease and to suggest simple steps to screen for, and ultimately improve, the psychological health of patients with and at risk for CVD. Based on current study data, the following statements can be made: There are good data showing clear associations between psychological health and CVD and risk; there is increasing evidence that psychological health may be causally linked to biological processes and behaviors that contribute to and cause CVD; the preponderance of data suggest that interventions to improve psychological health can have a beneficial impact on cardiovascular health; simple screening measures can be used by health care providers for patients with or at risk for CVD to assess psychological health status; and consideration of psychological health is advisable in the evaluation and management of patients with or at risk for CVD.

Psychiatric and Psychological Interventions for Depression in Patients With Heart Disease: A Scoping Review

Depression in patients with cardiovascular disease is independently associated with progression of heart disease, major adverse cardiac events, and mortality. A wide variety of depression treatment strategies have been studied in randomized controlled trials as the field works to identify optimal depression treatments in this population. A contemporary scoping review of the literature can help to consolidate and synthesize the growing and disparate literature on depression treatment trials in people with cardiovascular disease. We conducted a scoping review utilizing a systematic search of the literature via 4 databases (PubMed, PsycINFO, EMBASE, and Google Scholar) from database inception to March 2020. We identified 42 relevant randomized controlled trials of depression treatment interventions in patients with cardiac disease (n=9181 patients with coronary artery disease, n=1981 patients with heart failure). Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors appear to be safe in patients with cardiac disease and to have beneficial effects on depression (and some suggestion of cardiac benefit) in patients with coronary artery disease, with less evidence of their efficacy in heart failure. In contrast, psychotherapy appears to be effective for depression in coronary artery disease and heart failure, but with less evidence of cardiac benefit. Newer multimodal depression care management approaches that utilize flexible approaches to patients' care have been less studied but appear promising across cardiac patient groups. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors may be preferred in the treatment of patients with coronary artery disease, psychotherapy may be preferred in heart failure, and more flexible depression care management approaches have shown promise by potentially using both approaches based on patient needs.

Pharmacological interventions for prevention of depression in high risk conditions: Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Background Depressive disorders account for almost half of all Disability Adjusted Life Years caused by psychiatric disorders but efficacy of pharmacological interventions to prevent depressive disorders is not known. We aimed to assess efficacy of pharmacological treatments in prevention of depression.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Psych Info, EMBASE, and CINHAL from 1980 to January 2020 and bibliographies of relevant systematic reviews. We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that used a pharmacological intervention to prevent the onset of the new depressive episode in adult population. Study selection, data extraction and reporting was done following PRISMA guidelines. Data were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis.

RESULTS

28 trials (2745 participants) were included in meta-analysis. Antidepressants (22 studies), Selenium, Hormone Replacement Therapy Omega-3 fatty acids and Melatonin were used to prevent depression, mostly in physical conditions associated with high risk of depression. All pharmacological interventions [pooled Odds Ratios (OR) 0.37 CI (0.25-0.54)], and antidepressants (OR 0.29, 95% CI: 0.18, 0.46) were significantly more effective than placebo in preventing depression. Antidepressants were significantly better than placebo in trials that had low risk of bias (n = 16; OR 0.43 [0.30, 0.60]), in preventing post stroke depression (OR = 0.16, 95% CI: 0.05, 0.55) and depression associated with Hepatitis C (OR = 0.56, 95% CI: 0.31, 1.02). Limitations include small number of studies focussed only on high risk conditions and short follow up in most studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Prevention of depression may be possible in patients who have high-risk conditions such as stroke but the strategy requires complete risk and benefits analysis before it can be considered for clinical practice.

The effect of melatonin on depressive symptoms and anxiety in patients after acute coronary syndrome: The MEDACIS randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Depression following acute coronary syndrome is prevalent and associated with increased mortality and morbidity. Melatonin may function as a primary prophylactic antidepressant substance and alleviate depressive symptoms. The study was undertaken to determine if melatonin administered following an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) could prevent development of depression.

METHODS

The study was a double-blinded, placebo-controlled, multicenter, randomized clinical trial performed in five primary care cardiology departments at Zealand, Denmark. Included patients were adults patients, free of depression at baseline, included at the latest 4 weeks after acute coronary syndrome. Twenty-five mg melatonin or placebo was administered 1 h before participants' bedtime for 12 weeks. The primary outcome is Major Depression Inventory (MDI) measured every two weeks throughout the trial. Incidence of depression was apriori defined as MDI score ≥ 21 during the trial. Reported exploratory outcomes were patterns of dropout and safety outcomes.

RESULTS

1220 patients were screened and 252 participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio. Baseline MDI score in the melatonin and placebo group were, respectively, 6.18 (CI 5.32-7.05) and 5.98 (CI 5.19-6.77). No significant intergroup differences were found during the study in the intention-to-treat analysis or per-protocol analysis. Cumulative events of depressive episodes during the 12 weeks were six in the melatonin group and four in the placebo group. A significant drop in depressive symptoms were present throughout the study period. No intergroup differences were present in dropouts or adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Melatonin showed no prophylactic antidepressant effect following acute coronary syndrome. The non-significant results might be due to a type II error or melatonin might not be able to prevent development of depressive symptoms following ACS.

Efficacy and acceptability of antidepressants in patients with ischemic heart disease: systematic review and meta-analysis

To assess the efficacy and acceptability of antidepressants in adults with ischemic heart disease (IHD). We gathered all available randomized-controlled trials comparing antidepressants versus placebo or other antidepressants in adults with IHD. The primary outcome was depressive symptoms at the study endpoint, as measured by validated rating scales. We pooled data in a meta-analysis using a random-effects model. The confidence in the estimates (or certainty of the evidence) was assessed using the GRADE approach. Antidepressants appeared to be more effective than placebo in reducing depressive symptoms (11 comparisons; 1685 participants; standardized mean difference -0.71, 95% confidence interval: -1.11 to -0.30; GRADE quality: moderate). This result was confirmed in the subgroup of serotonin selective reuptake inhibitors, and for the single drugs sertraline and citalopram, with a greater magnitude of effect and a higher quality of evidence for the former. No differences between antidepressants and placebo emerged in terms of acceptability and tolerability, quality of life, mortality, and cardiovascular events. Only two small head-to-head studies were identified. Sertraline is a reasonable first-line choice in patients with IHD and depression, whereas the role of citalopram as the first-line agent should be reconsidered.

Prophylactic antidepressant treatment following acute coronary syndrome: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials

Major depressive disorder is significantly increased in patients following acute coronary syndrome resulting in twofold increased mortality compared with patients without depression. The depression diagnosis is often missed leading to considerable undertreatment. This systematic review assesses the current evidence of primary prophylactic treatment of depression in patients after acute coronary syndrome. The study protocol was prospectively registered at PROSPERO (registration number CRD42015025587). A systematic review were conducted and reported according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. PubMed, Embase, PsychINFO, CINAHL, and Cochran Library was searched. Two independent reviewers screened the records. The inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials on adult patients with acute coronary syndrome treated prophylactically with an antidepressant intervention of any kind. A validated assessment tool should measure depression and depressive symptoms. Languages were limited to articles written in English. Six articles were included. Four studies utilized different components of case and disease management, health coaching, or relaxational audiotapes as intervention compared with usual care or with no formal program of rehabilitation. None of the studies showed any significant prophylactic effect against depression. One study with a program of health education and counselling and another study with a pharmacological antidepressant showed significant prophylactic effect on depression and depressive symptoms. All six included studies were associated with high risk of bias. There is not strong evidence of the effects of any type of routine antidepressant prophylaxis in patients following acute coronary syndrome. Further high quality studies are warranted.

The effect of MElatonin on Depressive symptoms, Anxiety, CIrcadian and Sleep disturbances in patients after acute coronary syndrome (MEDACIS): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Depression following acute coronary syndrome (ACS) constitutes a serious and debilitating problem. Approximately one in five patients will develop significant depression following ACS and less severe depressive symptoms are even more frequent. Furthermore, anxiety symptoms and sleep-wake disturbances are frequent. The objective of the MEDACIS trial is to investigate whether prophylactic treatment with melatonin has a preventive effect on depression, depressive and anxiety symptoms, sleep, and circadian disturbances following ACS.

METHODS/DESIGN

"The effect of MElatonin and Depressive symptoms, Anxiety, CIrcadian and Sleep disturbances in patients after acute coronary syndrome" trial (MEDACIS) is a multicenter, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial. A total of 240 patients with ACS and no depressive symptoms will be included in the trial for treatment with either 25 mg melatonin or placebo for a 12-week period. Development and severity of depressive symptoms will be evaluated using Major Depression Inventory every 2 weeks with the purpose of investigating the potential preventive effect of melatonin on depressive symptoms.

DISCUSSION

Previously, only selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) have been investigated in a primary preventive setup in patients following ACS. However, SSRIs are associated with several side effects. An ideal intervention would constitute the highest degree of prevention of depressive symptoms with the lowest risk of side effects. In this regard, melatonin may have advantages due to its low toxicity as well as its proven anxiolytic and hypnotic effects.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, Identifier: NCT02451293 . Registered on 12 May 2015. EudraCT nr. 2015-002116-32.

Treatment of anxiety in patients with coronary heart disease: Rationale and design of the UNderstanding the benefits of exercise and escitalopram in anxious patients WIth coroNary heart Disease (UNWIND) randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Anxiety is highly prevalent among patients with coronary heart disease (CHD), and there is growing evidence that high levels of anxiety are associated with worse prognosis. However, few studies have evaluated the efficacy of treating anxiety in CHD patients for reducing symptoms and improving clinical outcomes. Exercise and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors have been shown to be effective in treating patients with depression, but have not been studied in cardiac patients with high anxiety.

METHODS

The UNWIND trial is a randomized clinical trial of patients with CHD who are at increased risk for adverse events because of comorbid anxiety. One hundred fifty participants with CHD and elevated anxiety symptoms and/or with a diagnosed anxiety disorder will be randomly assigned to 12 weeks of aerobic exercise (3×/wk, 35 min, 70%-85% VO2peak), escitalopram (5-20 mg qd), or placebo. Before and after 12 weeks of treatment, participants will undergo assessments of anxiety symptoms and CHD biomarkers of risk, including measures of inflammation, lipids, hemoglobin A1c, heart rate variability, and vascular endothelial function. Primary outcomes include post-intervention effects on symptoms of anxiety and CHD biomarkers. Secondary outcomes include clinical outcomes (cardiovascular hospitalizations and all-cause death) and measures of quality of life.

CONCLUSIONS

The UNWIND trial (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02516332) will evaluate the efficacy of aerobic exercise and escitalopram for improving anxiety symptoms and reducing risk for adverse clinical events in anxious CHD patients.

BDNF val66met polymorphism and depressive disorders in patients with acute coronary syndrome

INTRODUCTION

Brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) may be the key to understanding the development of depression in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS), as it is associated with both conditions. Because the expression of BDNF is influenced by genetic polymorphisms, in this study we investigated the association between the BDNF polymorphism val66met and both the risk of depression in ACS and the treatment response.

METHODS

Among the 969 patients with recent ACS at baseline, 711 were re-evaluated after 1 year of follow-up. Depressive disorder status was assessed according to the DSM-IV criteria both at baseline and at follow-up. Baseline prevalence, follow-up incidence, and the persistence of depression were also determined. Of the 378 patients diagnosed with depression at baseline, 255 were randomized to a 24-week double-blind placebo-controlled trial of escitalopram; the remaining 123 received the usual care. Associations between the BDNF val66met polymorphism and both depression status and treatment response were investigated using logistic regression models.

RESULTS

The prevalence and persistence, but not the incidence of depressive disorders were significantly associated with BDNF met alleles. Patients in the escitalopram group who carried the met allele had a significantly higher rate of remission than those who did not. Depressive disorders tended to persist at 1 year in patients managed with placebo or medical treatment only, and particularly those patients positive for BDNF met alleles, although the difference was not statistically significant.

LIMITATIONS

The generalizability should be considered since this study conducted in a single center.

CONCLUSIONS

ACS patients positive for BDNF met alleles are vulnerable to depressive disorders at baseline and to its persistence. Antidepressant treatment may be effective in this subgroup of patients and may prevent the persistence of depression.

Prevention of depression in patients with acute coronary syndrome (DECARD) randomized trial: effects on and by self-reported health

AIM

Escitalopram may prevent depression following acute coronary syndrome. We sought to estimate the effects of escitalopram on self-reported health and to identify subgroups with higher efficacy.

METHODS

This is a secondary analysis of a 12-month double-blind clinical trial randomizing non-depressed acute coronary syndrome patients to escitalopram (n = 120) or matching placebo (n = 120). The main outcomes were mean scores on Short Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36) domains, and diagnosis of depression was adjusted for baseline SF-36 scores.

RESULTS

Escitalopram did not yield different SF-36 trajectories on any scale compared with placebo (P > 0.28). Efficacy of escitalopram may have been better among those scoring at least the normative score on general health perceptions (hazard ratio (HR) for depression 0.17 (95% confidence interval 0.02-1.42) ) or social functioning (HR = 0.12 (0.02-0.99) ) than in the full sample of patients (HR = 0.20 (0.04-0.90) ), although not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

The SF-36 may be too broad an outcome measure in trials or treatments that seek to prevent depression following acute coronary syndrome. The SF-36 may, however, indicate who is more likely to benefit from treatment.

Effect of Patient-Focused Clinical Pathway on Anxiety, Depression and Satisfaction of Patients With Coronary Artery Disease: A Quasi-Experimental Study

Background:

Coronary artery diseases (CAD) are associated with psychological problems such as anxiety and depression in patients. Thus, management of these problems can consider as an important intervention by health care workers, especially nurses.

Objectives:

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of patient-focused clinical pathway on anxiety, depression and satisfaction of patients with CAD.

Patients and Methods:

In this quasi-experimental study, 138 patients suffering from CAD in a coronary care unit of a referral teaching hospital affiliated to Semnan University of Medical Sciences in Semnan, Iran, were recruited using a convenience sampling method. The participants were assigned to two groups: Clinical pathway (CP) and routine (RUT) care. The level of anxiety and depression of patients were measured in admission and discharge in both groups. Also, the level of patients’ satisfaction was measured at the time of discharge. Data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics.

Results:

Prevalence rates of anxiety and depression in total of patients were 7.2% and 8.7%, respectively. In terms of anxiety, the mean of difference between pretest and posttest scores in the CP group (0.52 ± 1.39) was higher compared to the RUT group (-0.17 ± 1.69) and there was a significant difference between the two group (P = 0.009). In terms of depression, the mean of this difference in the CP group (0.75 ± 2.05) was higher compared to the RUT group (0.00 ± 1.08), as there was a significant difference between the two group (P = 0.024). Also, the mean of patients’ satisfaction scores in the CP group (3.69 ± 0.39) was higher compared to the RUT group (3.45 ± 0.47) and there was a significant difference between the two groups (P = 0.002).

Conclusions:

According to the positive effects of CP on patients with CADs, it can be considered as a useful, safe and simple instrument for the improvement of patients’ outcomes. Thus, the findings of this study can provide a new insight in patient care for clinical nurses.

Treatment of affective disorders in cardiac disease

Patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD) commonly have syndromal major depression, and depression has been associated with an increased risk of morbidity and mortality. Prevalence of depression is between 17% and 47% in CVD patients. Pharmacologic and psychotherapeutic interventions have long been studied, and in general are safe and somewhat efficacious in decreasing depressive symptoms in patients with CVD. The impact on cardiac outcomes remains unclear. The evidence from randomized controlled clinical trials indicates that antidepressants, especially selective serotonin uptake inhibitors, are overwhelmingly safe, and likely to be effective in the treatment of depression in patients with CVD. This review describes the prevalence of depression in patients with CVD, the physiological links between depression and CVD, the treatment options for affective disorders, and the clinical trials that demonstrate efficacy and safety of antidepressant medications and psychotherapy in this patient population. Great progress has been made in understanding potential mediators between major depressive disorder and CVD—both health behaviors and shared biological risks such as inflammation.

Effects of depression screening on psychiatric outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndrome: Findings from the K-DEPACS and EsDEPACS studies

BACKGROUND

It has been controversial whether routine screening for depression should be recommended in all patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) due to lack of evidence for psychiatric as well as for cardiac outcomes. This study aimed to evaluate the result of screening for treatment and subsequent treatment of depression on one-year psychiatric outcomes in ACS.

METHODS

At baseline 1152 patients with recently developed ACS were screened with the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) and depressive disorder diagnoses were applied according to DSM-IV criteria. Of the 446 patients with depressive disorder, 300 were randomized to a 24-week double-blind trial of escitalopram or placebo, while the remaining 146 received conventional medical treatment only (MTO) without randomization. Of all baseline participants, 828 were followed up one year later. Psychiatric outcomes included BDI, Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD), Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), Social and Occupational Functioning Assessment Scale (SOFAS) and the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule-12 (WHODAS-12).

RESULTS

BDI screen-positive ACS patients showed worse one-year outcomes on MADRS, SOFAS, and WHODAS scores (p-values<0.01) compared to BDI screen-negative patients. Escitalopram treatment was associated with beneficial effects compared to placebo and MTO on one-year outcomes on HAMD, MADRS and SOFAS (p-values<0.01). Of patients screening positive on the BDI, those with depressive disorder treated with escitalopram had similar outcomes to those without depressive disorder.

CONCLUSIONS

Routine screening of depressive symptom in ACS patients is helpful to plan further management. Moreover, successive accurate diagnosis of depressive disorder with appropriated treatment is effective at least for psychiatric outcomes.

The cardiovascular safety profile of escitalopram

The cardiovascular effects of escitalopram were examined in a large group of participants in double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled studies. Escitalopram (n=3298) was administered at doses between 5 and 20mg/day. Patients were treated in acute (8-12 weeks) and long-term (24 weeks) studies. Assessment of cardiovascular safety included heart rate, blood pressure (BP), treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and electrocardiograms (ECGs). In the short-term, there was a small, but statistically significant 2 beats per minute decrease in heart rate with escitalopram compared with placebo. The difference compared to placebo in systolic or diastolic BP was not clinically or statistically significant. Valid ECG assessments at both baseline and last assessment were available for 2407 escitalopram patients and 1952 placebo patients. Escitalopram-placebo differences in mean changes in ECG values were not clinically meaningful. The mean difference to placebo in the corrected QT [Fridericia's (QTcF)] interval was 3.5 ms (all escitalopram doses); 1.3 ms (escitalopram 10mg) and 1.7 ms (escitalopram 20mg) (p=0.2836 for 10 versus 20 mg). One out of 2407 escitalopram patients had a QTcF interval >500 ms and a change from baseline >60 ms. The incidence and types of cardiac-associated adverse events were similar between patients treated for 8-12 weeks with placebo (2.2%) or escitalopram (1.9%) and for 24 weeks with placebo (2.7%) or escitalopram (2.3%). Analyses of data from long-term studies and studies of the elderly showed similar results. In conclusion, these data demonstrate that escitalopram, like other SSRIs, has a statistically significant effect on heart rate and no clinically meaningful effect on ECG values, BP, with a placebo-level incidence of cardiac-associated adverse events.

Treatment of depression in cardiovascular disease

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Depression in patients with Cardiovascular Disease (CVD) is extremely common, with a prevalence of 17-47%, and is associated with increased risk of morbidity and mortality. Treatment of depression has been hypothesized to reduce cardiac mortality. Pharmacologic and psychotherapeutic interventions have been studied and appear to be safe and in some studies effective in reducing depressive symptoms in patients with cardiac disease. The impact on cardiac outcomes remains unclear. This review briefly focuses on the prevalence of depression in patients with CVD, the physiological links between depression and CVD, and largely is concerned with the clinical trials that seek to demonstrate efficacy and safety of antidepressant medications and psychotherapy in this patient population.

METHODS

PubMed and PsycINFO databases were searched through July 2012. Publications were included if they were in English, a review article, or a clinical trial in the CVD population with comorbid depression. The search was completed with key words of antidepressants, CVD, coronary artery syndrome, SSRIs, depression, treatment of depression, post-MI (where MI is myocardial infarction), major depression, and cardiac disease. Trials were included if the patients were above the age of 18, both male and female genders, and had cardiac comorbidity. No trials were excluded.

RESULTS

A total of 61 articles and/or book chapters were included. The majority were from North America and Europe. There were 7 clinical trials of tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), one of TCAs and bupropion, and 10 trials of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). We also evaluated five trials involving psychotherapeutic techniques and/or collaborative care.

CONCLUSIONS

There is considerable evidence from randomized controlled clinical trials that antidepressants, especially SSRIs, are safe in the treatment of major depression in patients with CVD. Although efficacy has been demonstrated in some, but not all, trials for both antidepressants and certain psychotherapies, large, well-powered trials are urgently needed. There are virtually no data available on predictors of antidepressant response in depressed patients with CVD. Whether successful treatment of depression is associated with a reduction in cardiac morbidity and mortality remains unknown.

Cardiovascular safety of one-year escitalopram therapy in clinically nondepressed patients with acute coronary syndrome: results from the DEpression in patients with Coronary ARtery Disease (DECARD) trial

BACKGROUND

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors are commonly used for treatment of depression in patients with cardiac diseases. However, evidence of cardiovascular (CV) safety from randomized trials is based on studies of no longer than 6-month duration. We examined the CV safety of 1-year treatment with Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor escitalopram compared with placebo in patients with recent acute coronary syndrome (ACS).

METHODS

The DECARD (DEpression in patients with Coronary ARtery Disease) trial assessed the prophylactic effect of escitalopram on depression after ACS. Two hundred forty patients were randomized to escitalopram 10-mg daily or matching placebo for 1 year. Serial measures of CV safety including clinical and biochemical parameters, 24-hour electrocardiogram monitor, resting electrocardiogram, and echocardiographic assessment were obtained.

RESULTS

Escitalopram and placebo groups were comparable at baseline with regard to age, gender, sociodemography, depression score, risk factor profile, severity of heart disease, and medications. Dropout rates defined as withdrawal for any reason or lost to follow-up during the 12-month study period was 27.2% in the escitalopram group and 23.4% in the placebo group (NS). There were no statistically significant differences between intervention groups in any of CV safety measures including the incidence of ventricular arrhythmia and episodes of ST-segment depression, length of QTc, and systolic and diastolic echocardiographic measures at the 12-month follow-up between groups. After 12 months, 16 and 13 major adverse events (death, recurrent ACS, or acute revascularization) were recorded in the escitalopram and placebo group, respectively (NS).

CONCLUSIONS

One-year escitalopram treatment was safe and well tolerated in patients with recent ACS.

Is placebo useful in the treatment of major depression in clinical practice?

For many years, placebo has been defined by its inert content and use in clinical trials. In recent years, several studies have demonstrated its effect in the treatment of major depression. The aim of this paper is to present the conclusions of recent meta-analyses of the placebo effect in major depression, to explain the mechanism by which placebo exerts its effect, and to discuss whether placebo can be used in the treatment of patients with major depression in clinical practice. Recent meta-analyses have demonstrated that the placebo effect is estimated to account for 67% of the treatment effect in patients receiving antidepressants, and furthermore that placebo is as effective as antidepressants in patients with mild to moderate major depression (reporting a Hamilton Depression Rating Scale score lower than 25), whereas placebo is less effective than antidepressants in severely depressed patients. However, several limitations make the translation of these conclusions into clinical practice impracticable. Clinicians should learn from the "placebo lesson" to maximize the nonspecific effects of treatment when they prescribe an antidepressant, particularly in less severely depressed patients, who show a higher placebo response in randomized controlled trials. This strategy can increase the antidepressant effect and may reduce nonadherence with treatment.

Heartache and heartbreak--the link between depression and cardiovascular disease

The close, bidirectional relationship between depression and cardiovascular disease is well established. Major depression is associated with an increased risk of coronary artery disease and acute cardiovascular sequelae, such as myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, and isolated systolic hypertension. Morbidity and mortality in patients with cardiovascular disease and depression are significantly higher than in patients with cardiovascular disease who are not depressed. Various pathophysiological mechanisms might underlie the risk of cardiovascular disease in patients with depression: increased inflammation; increased susceptibility to blood clotting (owing to alterations in multiple steps of the clotting cascade, including platelet activation and aggregation); oxidative stress; subclinical hypothyroidism; hyperactivity of the sympatho-adrenomedullary system and the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis; reductions in numbers of circulating endothelial progenitor cells and associated arterial repair processes; decreased heart rate variability; and the presence of genetic factors. Early identification of patients with depression who are at risk of cardiovascular disease, as well as prevention and appropriate treatment of cardiovascular disease in these patients, is an important and attainable goal. However, adequately powered studies are required to determine the optimal treatment regimen for patients with both depression and cardiovascular disorders.

Profiling illness perceptions to identify patients at-risk for decline in health status after heart valve replacement

OBJECTIVE

Identification of risk factors for decline in health status by profiling illness perceptions before and one year after heart valve replacement surgery.

METHODS

Prospective data from N=225 consecutively admitted first time valve replacement patients was assessed before and one year after surgery. Patients were asked about their illness perceptions (Illness Perception Questionnaire-Revised) and mood state (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale). Health status was defined by quality of life (Short-Form 36) and New York Heart Association (NYHA) class. Cluster analyses were conducted to identify illness perception profiles over time. Predictors of health status after surgery were analyzed with multivariate methods.

RESULTS

Patients were grouped according to the stability and nature (positive, negative) of their illness perception profile over one year. One year after surgery patients holding a negative illness perception profile showed a lower physical quality of life and were diagnosed in a higher New York Heart Association class than patients changing to positive and patients with stable positive illness perceptions (P<.001). Over and above biological determinants, post-surgery physical quality of life and NYHA class were both predicted by pre-surgery illness perception profiles (P<.05).

CONCLUSION

Patients going for heart valve replacement surgery can be easily categorized into illness perception profiles that predict health status one year after surgery. These patients could benefit from early screening as negative illness perceptions are modifiable risk factors.