Search

IntroductionCombination antiretroviral therapy (cART) improves outcomes for people living with HIV (PLWH) but requires adherence to daily dosing. Suboptimal adherence results in reduced treatment effectiveness, increased costs, and greater risk of resistance and onwards transmission. Treatment with long-acting (LA), injection-based ART administered by healthcare professionals (directly observed therapy (DOT)) eliminates the need for adherence to daily dosing and may improve clinical outcomes. This study reports the cost-effectiveness of the cabotegravir plus rilpivirine LA regimen (CAB+RPV LA) and models the potential impact of LA DOT therapies.MethodsParameterisation was performed using pooled data from recent CAB+RPV LA Phase III trials. The analysis was conducted using a cohort-level hybrid decision-tree and state-transition model, with states defined by viral load and CD4 cell count. The efficacy of oral cART was adjusted to reflect adherence to daily regimens from published data. A Canadian health service perspective was adopted.ResultsCAB+RPV LA is predicted to be the dominant intervention when compared to oral cART, generating, per 1,000 patients treated, lifetime cost-savings of $1.5 million, QALY and life-year gains of 107 and 138 respectively with three new HIV cases averted.ConclusionsEconomic evaluations of LA DOTs need to account for the impact of adherence and HIV transmission. This study adds to the existing literature by incorporating transmission and using clinical data from the first LA DOT regimen. Providing PLWH and healthcare providers with novel modes of ART administration, enhancing individualisation of treatment, may facilitate the achievement of UNAIDS 95-95-95 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.A 2008 American Heart Association (AHA) Science Advisory recommended routine depression screening in CHD.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.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.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.

Increasingly, medical research involves patients who complete outcomes in different languages. This occurs in countries with more than one common language, such as Canada (French/English) or the United States (Spanish/English), as well as in international multi-centre collaborations, which are utilized frequently in rare diseases such as systemic sclerosis (SSc). In order to pool or compare outcomes, instruments should be measurement equivalent (invariant) across cultural or linguistic groups. This study provides an example of how to assess cross-language measurement equivalence by comparing the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression (CES-D) scale between English-speaking Canadian and Dutch SSc patients.The CES-D was completed by 922 English-speaking Canadian and 213 Dutch SSc patients. 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 the amount of differential item functioning (DIF).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 items on the CES-D. The English-speaking Canadian sample endorsed more feeling-related symptoms, whereas the Dutch sample endorsed more somatic/retarded activity symptoms. The overall estimate in depression scores between English and Dutch was not influenced substantively by DIF.CES-D scores from English-speaking Canadian and Dutch SSc patients can be compared and pooled without concern that measurement differences may substantively influence results. The importance of assessing cross-language measurement equivalence in rheumatology studies prior to pooling outcomes obtained in different languages should be emphasized.

Medical research increasingly utilizes patient-reported outcome measures administered and scored in different languages. In order to pool or compare outcomes from different language versions, instruments should be measurement equivalent across linguistic groups. The objective of this study was to examine the cross-language measurement equivalence of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) between English- and French-speaking Canadian patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc).The sample consisted of 739 English- and 221 French-speaking SSc patients. Multiple-Indicator Multiple-Cause (MIMIC) modeling was used to identify items displaying possible differential item functioning (DIF).A one-factor model for the PHQ-9 fit the data well in both English- and French-speaking samples. Statistically significant DIF was found for 3 of 9 items on the PHQ-9. However, the overall estimate in depression latent scores between English- and French-speaking respondents was not influenced substantively by DIF.Although there were several PHQ-9 items with evidence of minor DIF, there was no evidence that these differences influenced overall scores meaningfully. The PHQ-9 can reasonably be used without adjustment in Canadian English- and French-speaking samples. Analyses assessing measurement equivalence should be routinely conducted prior to pooling data from English and French versions of patient-reported outcome measures.

Background and objectivesDepression is common among acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients and is associated with poor prognosis. Cardiac side effects of older antidepressants were well-known, but newer antidepressants are generally thought of as safe to use in patients with heart disease. The objective was to assess rates of antidepressant use or prescription to patients within a year of an ACS.MethodsPubMed, PsycINFO, and CINAHL databases searched through May 29, 2009; manual searching of 33 journals from May 2009 to September 2010. Articles in any language were included if they reported point or period prevalence of antidepressant use or prescription in the 12 months prior or subsequent to an ACS for ≥100 patients. Two investigators independently selected studies for inclusion/exclusion and extracted methodological characteristics and outcomes from included studies (study setting, inclusion/exclusion criteria, sample size, prevalence of antidepressant prescription/use, method of assessing antidepressant prescription/use, time period of assessment).ResultsA total of 24 articles were included. The majority were from North America and Europe, and most utilized chart review or self-report to assess antidepressant use or prescription. Although there was substantial heterogeneity in results, overall, rates of antidepressant use or prescription increased from less than 5% prior to 1995 to 10-15% after 2000. In general, studies from North America reported substantially higher rates than studies from Europe, approximately 5% higher among studies that used chart or self-report data.ConclusionsAntidepressant use or prescription has increased considerably, and by 2005 approximately 10% to 15% of ACS patients were prescribed or using one of these drugs.

Several practice guidelines recommend screening for depression in cancer care, but no systematic reviews have examined whether there is evidence that depression screening benefits cancer patients. The objective was to evaluate the potential benefits of depression screening in cancer patients by assessing the (1) accuracy of depression screening tools; (2) effectiveness of depression treatment; and (3) effect of depression screening, either alone or in the context of comprehensive depression care, on depression outcomes.Data sources were CINAHL, Cochrane, EMBASE, ISI, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and SCOPUS databases through January 24, 2011; manual journal searches; reference lists; citation tracking; trial registry reviews. Articles on cancer patients were included if they (1) compared a depression screening instrument to a valid criterion for major depressive disorder (MDD); (2) compared depression treatment with placebo or usual care in a randomized controlled trial (RCT); (3) assessed the effect of screening on depression outcomes in a RCT.There were 19 studies of screening accuracy, 1 MDD treatment RCT, but no RCTs that investigated effects of screening on depression outcomes. Screening accuracy studies generally had small sample sizes (median = 17 depression cases) and used exploratory methods to set sample-specific cutoff scores that varied substantially across studies. A nurse-delivered intervention for MDD reduced depressive symptoms moderately (effect size = 0.37).The one treatment study reviewed reported modest improvement in depressive symptoms, but no evidence was found on whether or not depression screening in cancer patients, either alone or in the context of optimal depression care, improves depression outcomes compared to usual care. Depression screening in cancer should be evaluated in a RCT in which all patients identified as depressed, either through screening or via physician recognition and referral in a control group, have access to comprehensive depression care.