Depression and employment status in primary and tertiary care settings.

OBJECTIVE: Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a leading cause of disability. Impairment in work function considerably adds to symptom burden and increases the economic impact of this disorder. Our study aimed to investigate the factors associated with work status in MDD within primary and tertiary care. METHOD: We used data from 2 large databases for our analysis--Study 1: the InSight database, a chart review of MDD patients treated by primary care physicians across Canada (n=986); and Study 2: the International Mood Disorders Collaborative Project, a cross-sectional study of mood disorder patients (Canadian data only: n=274). RESULTS: Both studies demonstrated high rates of unemployment and disability (30.3% to 42.1%). Quebec showed the highest rate of unemployment (21%) and British Columbia had the greatest percentage of patients on disability (15%). Employed and unemployed groups were similar based on clinical characteristics; however, unemployed people may have higher age, prevalence of medical comorbidity, and greater likelihood of receiving a benzodiazepine. Increased disability rates were associated with history of childhood abuse, duration of current major depressive episode, comorbidity, benzodiazepine use, as well as greater depression and anxiety severity. The unemployed-disability groups had greater somatic symptoms and anhedonia. In keeping with this, anhedonia was the strongest predictor of disability. Absenteeism was also high across both studies. CONCLUSIONS: Unemployment and disability rates in MDD are high. The presence of anhedonia and medical comorbidity significantly influenced work status, emphasizing the need for treatment strategies to alleviate the additional symptom burden in this subpopulation.

Treatment-resistant depression in primary care across Canada.

OBJECTIVE: Treatment-resistant depression (TRD) represents a considerable global health concern. The goal of the InSight study was to investigate the prevalence of TRD and to evaluate its clinical characterization and management, compared with nonresistant depression, in primary care centres. METHODS: Physicians completed a case report on a consecutive series of patients with major depressive disorder (n = 1212), which captured patient demographics and comorbidity, as well as current and past medication. RESULTS: Using failure to respond to at least 2 antidepressants (ADs) from different classes as the definition of TRD, the overall prevalence was 21.7%. There were no differences in prevalence between men and women or among ethnicities. Patients with TRD had longer episode duration, were more likely to receive polypharmacy (for example, psychotropic, lipid-lowering, and antiinflammatory agents), and reported more AD related side effects. Higher rates of disability and comorbidity (axes I to III) were associated with treatment resistance. Obesity and being overweight were also associated with treatment resistance. While the selection and sequencing of pharmacotherapy by family physicians in this sample was in line with recommendations from evidence-based treatment guidelines, the wait time to make a change in treatment was 6 to 8 weeks in both groups, which exceeds guideline recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: These real-world data demonstrate the high prevalence of TRD in primary care settings, and underscore the substantial burden of illness associated with TRD.

Discordance between physicians' estimation of patient cardiovascular risk and use of evidence-based medical therapy.

Despite clinical trial evidence supporting the use of antiplatelets, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and statins for cardiovascular risk reduction in high-risk patients, use of such therapies in real-world outpatients in the prospective Vascular Protection Registry and the Guidelines Oriented Approach to Lipid Lowering Registry was suboptimal (78%, 55%, and 75%, respectively). The most frequent reason physicians cited for nonprescription of statins (33%) was that patients were not high risk enough and/or current guidelines did not support statin use. In conclusion, outpatients at high cardiovascular risk continue to be undertreated as a result of a combination of physician underestimation of cardiovascular risk (knowledge gap) and barriers to implementation of evidence-based therapy (practice gap).

Use of cardiac catheterization for non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes according to initial risk: reasons why physicians choose not to refer their patients.

BACKGROUND: Despite the recommendation for an early invasive strategy in the treatment of patients who present with non-ST-segment elevation (NSTE) acute coronary syndromes (ACS), referral for cardiac catheterization is suboptimal; the reasons why some patients are not referred remain unclear. METHODS: Patients were recruited into the prospective, observational Canadian ACS Registry II between October 1, 2002, and December 31, 2003; 2136 patients with NSTE ACS identified through the registry were divided into tertiles according to the Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction risk score and the rates of catheterization compared. In addition, the most responsible physicians were asked to indicate the main reason they did not refer their patients for catheterization. RESULTS: The rate of referral for catheterization was 64.7%. Patients who underwent catheterization had lower in-hospital (0.8% vs 3.7%; P < .001) and 1-year mortality rates (4.0% vs 10.9%; P < .001) compared with those who did not. Higher-risk patients were referred at a similar rate as low-risk patients (62.5% vs 66.9%; P = .25). Among the reasons provided by the most responsible physician as to why patients were not referred for catheterization, 68.4% of patients were thought to be "not at high enough risk"; however, 59.1% of these patients were found to be at intermediate to high risk according to their baseline Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction risk score. CONCLUSIONS: Cardiac catheterization is not used optimally in patients who present with NSTE ACS. Despite better in-hospital and 1-year outcomes in those patients who are referred for catheterization, many higher-risk patients are not being referred because of the perception that they are not at high enough risk. A significant opportunity remains to improve on accurate risk stratification and adherence to an early invasive strategy for higher-risk patients.

Prognostic significance of admission heart failure in patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes (from the Canadian Acute Coronary Syndrome Registries).

We evaluated the in-hospital and 1-year outcomes and predictors of admission heart failure in patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACSs) without previous heart failure. We analyzed 4,825 patients with NSTE-ACS without a history of congestive heart failure who were included in the multicenter Canadian ACS Registries. Patients in Killip's class II/III on admission (n = 559, 11.6%) were compared with patients in Killip's class I. Patients with heart failure on admission were older (72 [64, 79] vs 64 [54, 73] years, p < 0.0001), with higher baseline creatinine levels (96 vs 88 mmol/dl, p <0.0001), more diabetes (32.2% vs 22.8%, p < 0.0001), hypertension (58% vs 52.4%, p = 0.014), previous myocardial infarction (MI; 38.9% vs 30.3%, p < 0.0001), previous stroke (13.5% vs 7.4%, p < 0.0001), and had more ST depression on admission (27.7% vs 17.3%, p < 0.0001). In-hospital treatment was similar except for a lower rate of aspirin therapy and fewer coronary interventions. Crude event rates were significantly higher in patients with heart failure (in-hospital death 3.6% vs 1.1%, p < 0.0001; death or MI 7.9% vs 4.7%, p = 0.0011; stroke 1.1% vs 0.4%, p = 0.03). One-year event rates were also higher in patients with heart failure (death 14.6% vs 4.4%, p < 0.0001; MI 9.3% vs 6.6%, p = 0.03; death or MI 21.5% vs 10.3%, p < 0.0001). Variables independently associated with heart failure were age (odds ratio 1.57, 95% confidence interval 1.43 to 1.73), diabetes mellitus (odds ratio 1.53, 95% confidence interval 1.24 to 1.89), admission ST depression (odds ratio 1.52, 95% confidence interval 1.22 to 1.90), previous MI, and baseline creatinine. Heart failure on admission was an independent predictor of in-hospital death, death or MI, and stroke and of 1-year death and death or MI. In conclusion, in patients with NSTE-ACS, heart failure on admission is associated with increased short- and long-term rates of death and MI.

Supporting a call to action for peripheral artery disease: insights from two prospective clinical registries.

BACKGROUND: Patients affected by peripheral arterial disease (PAD) incur a heightened risk of adverse cardiovascular events, including stroke, myocardial infarction, and vascular mortality. We examined risk factors, medications, and prognosis of outpatients with PAD enrolled in two national, prospective, practice-based Canadian registries that encompassed 484 physician practices: the Vascular Protection and Guideline Oriented Approach in Lipid Lowering registries. METHODS: The 2 registries were combined to analyze 9810 patients with vascular disease, diabetes mellitus, or age 65 years or older plus at least 2 additional cardiovascular risk factors. Risk factors, medications, and major cardiovascular events were recorded at baseline and again at 6 months' follow-up. RESULTS: Compared with patients without PAD (n = 8303), those with PAD (n = 1507) had substantially worse risk factor profiles and were more likely to have coexisting coronary or cerebrovascular disease. Both groups received high rates of treatment with evidence-based therapies, including antiplatelet drugs, statins, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. Despite this, patients with PAD had a nearly twofold higher risk of major cardiovascular events at 6 months than non-PAD patients (7.3% vs 4.1%; P < .0001). After adjustment for multiple confounding factors, the presence of PAD at baseline continued to predict a heightened risk of adverse vascular sequelae (odds ratio, 1.54; 95% confidence interval, 1.18-2.01; P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: These data support a strong relationship between PAD and worsened vascular prognosis that is independent of both conventional vascular risk factors and concomitant cardiovascular disease. The presence of PAD should therefore provide a clear impetus for intensive risk factor modification and use of preventive medical therapy in affected patients.

In-hospital revascularization and one-year outcome of acute coronary syndrome patients stratified by the GRACE risk score.

In the prospective, multicenter Canadian Acute Coronary Syndromes Registry, in-hospital revascularization was independently associated with better 1-year survival only among patients with high-risk non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes stratified by the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events risk score; similar benefits were not observed in the low- and intermediate-risk groups. The Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events risk score appears to be a useful risk stratification tool that identifies high-risk patients for whom more aggressive treatment is warranted.