A primary care cardiovascular risk reduction clinic in Canada was more effective and no more expensive than usual on-demand primary care--a randomised controlled trial.

The objective of this randomised controlled trial was to compare the effects and expense of three approaches to care (1) proactive cardiovascular risk reduction (CaRR) clinic; (2) nurse telephone calls; or (3) usual care for people with cardiovascular risk factors in a Primary Care, Health Service Organisation (HSO) in Ontario, Canada. Subjects included consenting patients with an identified cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factor identified from the HSO computerised patient information system in 2004. Patients were excluded if they were mentally incompetent, <18 years of age, in a nursing home, or not English speaking. Of 1570 eligible subjects, 523 (33.3%) verbally declined, 145 (9.2%) could not be contacted, and 249 (15.9%) were not needed. The final sample size was 653 (41.6%), 634 completed the follow-up (97%). The Cardiovascular Risk Score, Health and Social Service Utilisation, Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating, Billings and Moos Indices of Coping, Personal Resource and Self-Efficacy Questionnaires were measured at baseline and 1-year follow-up by clinical examination and telephone interview. Cardiovascular risk scores were reduced in all treatment groups after 1 year. The proportions of subjects showing reduction in risk score greater than or equal to 10% was greatest in the CaRR group (69.2%) compared with Nurse Phone intervention (57.8%) and Usual Care (59.0%) (M-Hchi(2) = 4.33, df = 1, P = 0.037, CaRR-Usual Care). Self-efficacy scores showed the greatest improvements in the CaRR clinic. This effect was achieved with no significant difference in total person per annum costs for direct and indirect health and social service utilisation between all three groups. A CaRR clinic is more effective in reducing CVD risk after 1 year compared with nurse phone intervention and usual care with no additional expense found.

Burden of dysthymia and comorbid illness in adults in a Canadian primary care setting: high rates of psychiatric illness in the offspring.

BACKGROUND: The burden of comorbid dysthymia and other comorbid psychiatric illnesses in a Canadian primary care setting was measured. Two groups of primary care patients: those who scored positive for comorbid dysthymia versus those who scored negative for any psychiatric disorder were compared. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional survey in a Health Service Organization (HSO) in Ontario, Canada. The subjects were patients of the HSO. The main outcome measures were: health status, mood, social adjustment, coping ability, children's psychiatric disorders, child development, family function, and health and social service utilization. RESULTS: Of the 6280 eligible adults who were patients at the HSO, 68.9% consented to be screened for psychiatric disorders; 5.1% screened positive for dysthymia, of which 90% had at least one comorbid psychiatric disorder. The following statistically significant differences were found between people with dysthymia and other comorbid psychiatric disorders versus people without any psychiatric disorder. People with dysthymia were more likely to have worse health status, worry more about their health, and report levels of pain that impaired their function; they had higher MADRS depression scores, lower social role function scores, lower social adjustment scores, and lower coping ability. More children of people with comorbid dysthymia met criteria for one or more childhood psychiatric disorders and there were more families with a parent with dysthymia that were dysfunctional. People with dysthymia used a greater proportion of health and social services, had higher per person annual health care costs (excluding hospital services), and had higher per person annual indirect costs (lost wages). CONCLUSION: This analysis demonstrated the burden of illness and costs that this disorder imposes on individuals, their families, and society as a whole.

Sertraline and/or interpersonal psychotherapy for patients with dysthymic disorder in primary care: 6-month comparison with longitudinal 2-year follow-up of effectiveness and costs.

BACKGROUND: There is little information on the long-term effects and costs of a combination of Sertraline and interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT) for the treatment of dysthymia in primary care. METHODS: In a single-blind, randomized clinical trial, 707 adults (18-74 years of age inclusive) with DSM-IV dysthymic disorder, with or without past and/or current major depression, as an acute or chronic episode, in a community-based primary care practice in Ontario, Canada, were randomized to treatment with either Sertraline alone (50-200 mg), or IPT alone (10 sessions), or Sertraline plus IPT combined. In the acute treatment phase (first 6 months) all groups received full active treatment. This was followed by an additional 18-month naturalistic follow-up phase. Subjects were assessed for effectiveness of treatment in reducing depressive symptoms using the Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) at 6 months and twice again during the 18-month follow-up by blind independent observers. Treatment costs and subjects' use of other health and social services were also investigated. RESULTS: At 6 months, 586 subjects completed the MADRS questionnaire. There was a significant difference (P=0.025) in mean MADRS scores: 14.3 (Group I); 14.9 (Group II); 16.8 (Group III), using analysis of covariance. Response (40% improvement) rates were 60.2% for Sertraline alone, 46.6% for IPT alone, and 57.5% for Sertraline augmented by IPT (P=0.02). At 2 years, 525 subjects were retained for follow-up. There was no statistically significant difference between Sertraline alone and Sertraline plus IPT in symptom reduction. However, both were more effective than IPT alone in reducing depressive symptoms (P=0.03). There was a statistically significant difference between groups in costs for use of health and social services. The IPT treatment groups had the lower costs for use of health and social services. CONCLUSIONS: Sertraline or Sertraline plus IPT was more effective than IPT alone after 6 months. Over the long term (2 years), all three treatments provide reasonably effective treatment for reducing symptoms of dysthymia, but Sertraline or combining Sertraline with IPT is more effective than IPT alone. Of these two more effective treatments, subjects in the Sertraline plus IPT group had less health and social service costs by $480 per person over 2 years. These findings underscore the effects of combining pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy and the economic value of this more comprehensive treatment of dysthymia in primary care.