Why the study?
Does enhanced depression care improve cost-effectiveness and health-related quality of life in patients with ACS and persistent depressive symptoms?
RCT
Does enhanced depression care improve cost-effectiveness and health-related quality of life in patients with ACS and persistent depressive symptoms?
This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness and quality of life impact of enhanced depression care in patients recovering from acute coronary syndrome.
Cost-effectiveness of enhanced depression care in ACS remains undetermined; leaves open its value versus usual care for quality-adjusted outcomes.
Depression following an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) affects 2 in 5 patients and is one of the most important psychosocial predictors of a poor cardiovascular prognosis.1 In the Coronary Psychosocial Evaluation Studies (COPES) randomized controlled trial, we compared the effectiveness of enhanced depression care, which comprised patient preference for problem-solving psychotherapy, antidepressant use, or both, through the use of a stepped-care algorithm, with usual care in patients with ACS and persistent depressive symptoms 3 months after discharge.2 The 6-month trial demonstrated that enhanced depression care improved patient satisfaction with treatment and reduced depressive symptoms. However, the intervention's impact on health-related quality of life, health care utilization, and cost-effectiveness has not been evaluated. To help bridge this gap and inform decision making, we undertook a cost-effectiveness analysis of enhanced depression treatment in patients with ACS and persistent depressive symptoms using results from the COPES trial.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ladapo et al. (2012) conducted an RCT in Acute coronary syndrome with persistent depressive symptoms. Enhanced depression care vs. Usual care was evaluated on Cost-effectiveness.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: