Department of Psychology, Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI), Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Department of Psychiatry and Psychology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Brain Behav Immun. 2023 Aug;112:18-28. doi: 10.1016/j.bbi.2023.05.007. Epub 2023 May 18.
Although depression is a risk and prognostic factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD), clinical trials treating depression in patients with CVD have not demonstrated cardiovascular benefits. We proposed a novel explanation for the null results for CVD-related outcomes: the late timing of depression treatment in the natural history of CVD. Our objective was to determine whether successful depression treatment before, versus after, clinical CVD onset reduces CVD risk in depression. We conducted a single-center, parallel-group, assessor-blinded randomized controlled trial. Primary care patients with depression and elevated CVD risk from a safety net healthcare system (N = 216, M = 59 years, 78% female, 50% Black, 46% with income <$10,000/year) were randomized to 12 months of the eIMPACT intervention (modernized collaborative care involving internet cognitive-behavioral therapy [CBT], telephonic CBT, and/or select antidepressants) or usual primary care for depression (primary care providers supported by embedded behavioral health clinicians and psychiatrists). Outcomes were depressive symptoms and CVD risk biomarkers at 12 months. Intervention participants, versus usual care participants, exhibited moderate-to-large (Hedges' g = -0.65, p < 0.01) improvements in depressive symptoms. Clinical response data yielded similar results - 43% of intervention participants, versus 17% of usual care participants, had a ≥ 50% reduction in depressive symptoms (OR = 3.73, 95% CI: 1.93-7.21, p < 0.01). However, no treatment group differences were observed for the CVD risk biomarkers - i.e., brachial flow-mediated dilation, high-frequency heart rate variability, interleukin-6, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, β-thromboglobulin, and platelet factor 4 (Hedges' gs = -0.23 to 0.02, ps ≥ 0.09). Our modernized collaborative care intervention - which harnessed technology to maximize access and minimize resources - produced clinically meaningful improvements in depressive symptoms. However, successful depression treatment did not lower CVD risk biomarkers. Our findings indicate that depression treatment alone may not be sufficient to reduce the excess CVD risk of people with depression and that alternative approaches are needed. In addition, our effective intervention highlights the utility of eHealth interventions and centralized, remote treatment delivery in safety net clinical settings and could inform contemporary integrated care approaches. Trial Registration:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02458690.
虽然抑郁症是心血管疾病(CVD)的风险和预后因素,但治疗 CVD 患者抑郁症的临床试验并未显示出心血管益处。我们提出了一个新的解释,说明为什么与 CVD 相关的结果试验没有阳性结果:在 CVD 的自然病程中,抑郁症的治疗时间较晚。我们的目的是确定在临床 CVD 发病前和发病后成功治疗抑郁症是否会降低抑郁症患者的 CVD 风险。我们进行了一项单中心、平行组、评估者盲法随机对照试验。从一个安全网医疗保健系统(N=216,M=59 岁,78%女性,50%黑人,46%收入<10,000/年)中招募了患有抑郁症和 CVD 风险升高的初级保健患者,将他们随机分为 12 个月的 eIMPACT 干预组(涉及互联网认知行为疗法[CBT]、电话 CBT 和/或选择性抗抑郁药的现代化协作护理)或常规初级保健治疗抑郁症(初级保健提供者得到嵌入式行为健康临床医生和精神科医生的支持)。12 个月时的结局为抑郁症状和 CVD 风险生物标志物。与常规护理组相比,干预组患者的抑郁症状有中度到较大程度的改善(Hedges'g=-0.65,p<0.01)。临床反应数据得出了类似的结果 - 43%的干预组患者,而常规护理组患者中,有≥50%的抑郁症状减轻(OR=3.73,95%CI:1.93-7.21,p<0.01)。然而,在 CVD 风险生物标志物方面,两组之间没有观察到治疗组差异,即肱动脉血流介导的扩张、高频心率变异性、白细胞介素-6、高敏 C 反应蛋白、β-血栓球蛋白和血小板因子 4(Hedges'g=-0.23 至 0.02,p≥0.09)。我们的现代化协作护理干预措施——利用技术最大限度地提高了可及性并降低了资源需求——显著改善了抑郁症状。然而,成功治疗抑郁症并不能降低 CVD 风险生物标志物。我们的研究结果表明,仅治疗抑郁症可能不足以降低抑郁症患者的 CVD 风险,需要采取其他方法。此外,我们有效的干预措施突出了电子健康干预措施和集中、远程治疗在安全网临床环境中的效用,并为当代综合护理方法提供了信息。试验注册:ClinicalTrials.gov 标识符:NCT02458690。