Search

Introduction Genetic differences between races have been hypothesized to contribute to differences in outcome from acute coronary syndromes (ACS). Our objective was to assess racial differences in genetic variations in the platelet serotonin transporter (5HTT) and receptor in patients with ACS. Materials and methods 127 consecutive patients, African Americans (AA) = 27; Caucasian (C) =100, admitted with ACS were evaluated for platelet function by serotonin (5HT) induced platelet activation. All patients were genotyped for two polymorphisms in the serotonin-transporter-linked polymorphic region (5-HTTLPR) S/L and LG/LA and one polymorphism of the serotonin 2A receptor (5-HT2A, T102C) gene. All patients were followed for major and minor adverse cardiac events at 12 months. Results AA when compared to C had a lower prevalence of the HTTLPR S allele (21% vs 45%, p = 0.0003) and a higher prevalence of the LG allele (24% vs 4.5%, p = 0.0001). Allelic frequency of the 5-HT2A T102C allele was not significantly different between the races. Platelet activation was lower in AA compared to C, median EC50 5HT was 12.08 μg vs 2.14 μg (p = 0.001). The 5-HTTLPR and the 5-HT2A polymorphisms were not associated with platelet functional responses to serotonin. There were no significant differences in major or minor adverse cardiac events in patients with serotonin transporter or receptor polymorphisms. Conclusion We found a lower prevalence of the S allele and a higher prevalence of the G allele in AA with ACS. We also found decreased platelet activation in AA which did not correlate with serotonin-related platelet polymorphisms. It is unclear if other contributing factors may explain these platelet functional differences.

Background A novel patient-centered curricular experience was implemented in an internal medicine residency program in 2007. There is little published evidence that what is taught in residency affects practice after graduation. Objective We sought to evaluate whether graduates perceived any long-term effects of participation in this patient-centered curriculum. Methods From July to September 2015, a web-based survey with quantitative and qualitative components was sent to graduates of the program to assess self-reported effects of this curriculum on current practice. Graduates spent 2 to 8 weeks on the intervention team during their training. Responses to open-ended questions were independently coded by 2 investigators, using the editing analysis method. Emergent themes and representative quotes are reported. Results Of 150 residents who completed at least 1 year of training from 2007 to 2014, 94 of 110 (85%) with available email addresses responded to this survey. Of respondents, 21 (22%) were still in fellowship training, and 71 (76%) were in full-time practice. The majority responded “a great deal” when asked if the experience was valuable to their training as a physician (72 of 94, 77%) or influenced their practice (59 of 94, 63%). Free-text comments indicate that residents felt the experience enhanced their understanding of social determinants of health, communication skills, relationship building, and ability to tailor treatments to individual patients. Conclusions Internal medicine residency graduates reported that exposure to a curriculum focused on knowing patients as individuals had important enduring effects on their practice.

Objective As part of a quality improvement project, we developed and employed an observation checklist to measure patient-centered behaviors during daily rounds to assess the frequency of patient-centered behaviors among a patient-centered care (PCC) team and standard team (ST) rounds. Patients and Methods On four general medicine service (GMS) teaching teams at an urban academic medical center in which housestaff rotate, we utilized an observation checklist to assess the occurrence of eight behaviors on inpatient daily rounds. The checklist covered domains of patient-centered communication, etiquette-based behaviors, and shared decision-making. One GMS team is guided by a PCC curriculum that emphasizes patient-centered communication strategies, but not specifically behaviors during bedside rounds. Results Between August 2018 and May 2019 a trained observer completed 448 observations of patient rounding encounters using the checklist. Across all teams, 46.0% of the 8 behaviors were performed when possible, with more done on the PCC team (58.0%) than ST (42.0%), p

Shortened versions of self-reported questionnaires may be used to reduce respondent burden. When shortened screening tools are used, it is desirable to maintain equivalent diagnostic accuracy to full-length forms. This manuscript presents a case study that illustrates how external data and individual participant data meta-analysis can be used to assess the equivalence in diagnostic accuracy between a shortened and full-length form. This case study compares the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) and a 4-item shortened version (PHQ-Dep-4) that was previously developed using optimal test assembly methods. Using a large database of 75 primary studies (34,698 participants, 3,392 major depression cases), we evaluated whether the PHQ-Dep-4 cutoff of ≥ 4 maintained equivalent diagnostic accuracy to a PHQ-9 cutoff of ≥ 10. Using this external validation dataset, a PHQ-Dep-4 cutoff of ≥ 4 maximized the sum of sensitivity and specificity, with a sensitivity of 0.88 (95% CI 0.81, 0.93), 0.68 (95% CI 0.56, 0.78), and 0.80 (95% CI 0.73, 0.85) for the semi-structured, fully structured, and MINI reference standard categories, respectively, and a specificity of 0.79 (95% CI 0.74, 0.83), 0.85 (95% CI 0.78, 0.90), and 0.83 (95% CI 0.80, 0.86) for the semi-structured, fully structured, and MINI reference standard categories, respectively. While equivalence with a PHQ-9 cutoff of ≥ 10 was not established, we found the sensitivity of the PHQ-Dep-4 to be non-inferior to that of the PHQ-9, and the specificity of the PHQ-Dep-4 to be marginally smaller than the PHQ-9.

Objectives: Estimates of depression prevalence in pregnancy and postpartum are based on the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) more than on any other method. We aimed to determine if any EPDS cutoff can accurately and consistently estimate depression prevalence in individual studies. Methods: We analyzed datasets that compared EPDS scores to Structured Clinical Interview for DSM (SCID) major depression status. Random‐effects meta‐analysis was used to compare prevalence with EPDS cutoffs versus the SCID. Results: Seven thousand three hundred and fifteen participants (1017 SCID major depression) from 29 primary studies were included. For EPDS cutoffs used to estimate prevalence in recent studies (≥9 to ≥14), pooled prevalence estimates ranged from 27.8% (95% CI: 22.0%–34.5%) for EPDS ≥ 9 to 9.0% (95% CI: 6.8%–11.9%) for EPDS ≥ 14; pooled SCID major depression prevalence was 9.0% (95% CI: 6.5%–12.3%). EPDS ≥14 provided pooled prevalence closest to SCID‐based prevalence but differed from SCID prevalence in individual studies by a mean absolute difference of 5.1% (95% prediction interval: 13.7%, 12.3%). Conclusion: EPDS ≥14 approximated SCID‐based prevalence overall, but considerable heterogeneity in individual studies is a barrier to using it for prevalence estimation., This study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR, KRS‐140994). Ms. Lyubenova was supported by the Mitacs Globalink Research Internship Program. Ms. Neupane was supported by G.R. Caverhill Fellowship from the Faculty of Medicine, McGill University. Drs. Levis and Wu were supported by Fonds de recherche du Québec‐Santé (FRQS) Postdoctoral Training Fellowships. Mr. Bhandari was supported by a studentship from the Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre. Ms. Rice was supported by a Vanier Canada Graduate Scholarship. Ms. Azar was supported by a FRQS Masters Training Award. The primary study by Barnes et al. was supported by a grant from the Health Foundation (1665/608). The primary study by Beck et al. was supported by the Patrick and Catherine Weldon Donaghue Medical Research Foundation and the University of Connecticut Research Foundation. The primary study by Helle et al. was supported by the Werner Otto Foundation, the Kroschke Foundation, and the Feindt Foundation. Prof. Robertas Bunevicius, MD, PhD (1958‐2016) was Principal Investigator of the primary study by Bunevicius et al., but passed away and was unable to participate in this project. The primary study by Chaudron et al. was supported by a grant from the National Institute of Mental Health (grant K23 MH64476). The primary study by Tissot et al. was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation (grant 32003B 125493). The primary study by Tendais et al. was supported under the project POCI/SAU‐ESP/56397/2004 by the Operational Program Science and Innovation 2010 (POCI 2010) of the Community Support Board III and by the European Community Fund FEDER. The primary study by Garcia‐Esteve et al. was supported by grant 7/98 from the Ministerio de Trabajo y Asuntos Sociales, Women's Institute, Spain. The primary study by Howard et al. was supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) under its Programme Grants for Applied Research Programme (Grant Reference Numbers RP‐PG‐1210‐12002 and RP‐DG‐1108‐10012) and by the South London Clinical Research Network. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. The primary study by Phillips et al. was supported by a scholarship from the National Health and Medical and Research Council (NHMRC). The primary study by Nakić Radoš et al. was supported by the Croatian Ministry of Science, Education, and Sports (134‐0000000‐2421). The primary study by Navarro et al. was supported by grant 13/00 from the Ministry of Work and Social Affairs, Institute of Women, Spain. The primary study by Pawlby et al. was supported by a Medical Research Council UK Project Grant (number G89292999N). The primary study by Quispel et al. was supported by Stichting Achmea Gezondheid (grant number z‐282). Dr. Robertson‐Blackmore was supported by a Young Investigator Award from the Brain and Behavior Research Foundation and NIMH grant K23MH080290. The primary study by Rochat et al. was supported by grants from the University of Oxford (HQ5035), the Tuixen Foundation (9940), the Wellcome Trust (082384/Z/07/Z and 071571), and the American Psychological Association. Dr. Rochat receives salary support from a Wellcome Trust Intermediate Fellowship (211374/Z/18/Z). The primary study by Prenoveau et al. was supported by The Wellcome Trust (grant number 071571). The primary study by Stewart et al. was supported by Professor Francis Creed's Journal of Psychosomatic Research Editorship fund (BA00457) administered through University of Manchester. The primary study by Tandon et al. was funded by the Thomas Wilson Sanitarium. The primary study by Tran et al. was supported by the Myer Foundation who funded the study under its Beyond Australia scheme. Dr. Tran was supported by an early career fellowship from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. The primary study by Vega‐Dienstmaier et al. was supported by Tejada Family Foundation, Inc, and Peruvian‐American Endowment, Inc. Drs. Benedetti and Thombs were supported by FRQS researcher salary awards.

The Maternal Mental Health in Canada, 2018/2019, survey reported that 18% of 7,085 mothers who recently gave birth reported "feelings consistent with postpartum depression" based on scores ≥7 on a 5-item version of the Edinburgh Postpartum Depression Scale (EPDS-5). The EPDS-5 was designed as a screening questionnaire, not to classify disorders or estimate prevalence; the extent to which EPDS-5 results reflect depression prevalence is unknown. We investigated EPDS-5 ≥7 performance relative to major depression prevalence based on a validated diagnostic interview, the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM (SCID)., The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR, KRS-140994). Drs. Thombs and Benedetti were supported by Fonds de recherche du Qu´ebec–Sant´e (FRQS) researcher salary awards. Dr. Levis was supported by a FRQS Postdoctoral Training Fellowship. Ms. Lyubenova was supported by theMitacs Globalink Research Internship Program. Ms. Neupane was supported by G.R. Caverhill Fellowship from the Faculty of Medicine, McGill University. Dr. Wu was supported by a FRQS Postdoctoral Training Fellowship. Ms. Rice was supported by a Vanier Canada Graduate Scholarship. Mr. Bhandari was supported by a studentship from the Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre. Ms. Azar was supported by a FRQS Masters Training Award. The primary study by Barnes et al. was supported by a grant from the Health Foundation (1665/608). The primary study by Beck et al. was supported by the Patrick and Catherine Weldon Donaghue Medical Research Foundation and the University of Connecticut Research Foundation. The primary study by de Figueiredo et al. was supported by Fundacão de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo. The primary study by Tendais et al. was supported under the project POCI/SAU-ESP/56397/2004 by the Operational Program Science and Innovation 2010 (POCI 2010) of the Community Support Board III and by the European Community Fund FEDER. The primary study by Helle et al. was supported by the Werner Otto Foundation, the Kroschke Foundation, and the Feindt Foundation. The primary study by Howard et al. was supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) under its Programme Grants for Applied Research Programme (Grant Reference Numbers RPPG-1210-12002 and RP-DG-1108-10012) and by the South London Clinical Research Network. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. The primary study by Phillips et al. was supported by a scholarship from the National Health and Medical and Research Council (NHMRC). The primary study by Nakic´ Radoˇs et al. was supported by the Croatian Ministry of Science, Education, and Sports (134-0000000-2421). The primary study by Quispel et al. was supported by Stichting Achmea Gezondheid (grant number z-282). The primary study by Rochat et al. was supported by grants from the University of Oxford (HQ5035), the Tuixen Foundation (9940), the Wellcome Trust (082384/Z/07/Z and 071571), and the American Psychological Association. Dr. Rochat receives salary support from a Wellcome Trust Intermediate Fellowship (211374/Z/18/Z). The primary study by Prenoveau et al. was supported by The Wellcome Trust (grant number 071571). The primary study by Stewart et al. was supported by Professor Francis Creed’s Journal of Psychosomatic Research Editorship fund (BA00457) administered through University of Manchester. The primary study by Tandon et al. was funded by the Thomas Wilson Sanitarium. The primary study by Tran et al. was supported by the Myer Foundation who funded the study under its Beyond Australia scheme. Dr. Tran was supported by an early career fellowship from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR, or the Department of Health and Social Care. The primary study by Vega-Dienstmaier et al. was supported by Tejada Family Foundation, Inc, and Peruvian-American Endowment, Inc. No other authors reported funding for primary studies or for their work on this study.

Objectives Validated diagnostic interviews are required to classify depression status and estimate prevalence of disorder, but screening tools are often used instead. We used individual participant data meta-analysis to compare prevalence based on standard Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale – depression subscale (HADS-D) cutoffs of ≥8 and ≥11 versus Structured Clinical Interview for DSM (SCID) major depression and determined if an alternative HADS-D cutoff could more accurately estimate prevalence. Methods We searched Medline, Medline In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations via Ovid, PsycINFO, and Web of Science (inception-July 11, 2016) for studies comparing HADS-D scores to SCID major depression status. Pooled prevalence and pooled differences in prevalence for HADS-D cutoffs versus SCID major depression were estimated. Results 6005 participants (689 SCID major depression cases) from 41 primary studies were included. Pooled prevalence was 24.5% (95% Confidence Interval (CI): 20.5%, 29.0%) for HADS-D ≥8, 10.7% (95% CI: 8.3%, 13.8%) for HADS-D ≥11, and 11.6% (95% CI: 9.2%, 14.6%) for SCID major depression. HADS-D ≥11 was closest to SCID major depression prevalence, but the 95% prediction interval for the difference that could be expected for HADS-D ≥11 versus SCID in a new study was −21.1% to 19.5%. Conclusions HADS-D ≥8 substantially overestimates depression prevalence. Of all possible cutoff thresholds, HADS-D ≥11 was closest to the SCID, but there was substantial heterogeneity in the difference between HADS-D ≥11 and SCID-based estimates. HADS-D should not be used as a substitute for a validated diagnostic interview.

Importance The Patient Health Questionnaire depression module (PHQ-9) is a 9-item self-administered instrument used for detecting depression and assessing severity of depression. The Patient Health Questionnaire-2 (PHQ-2) consists of the first 2 items of the PHQ-9 (which assess the frequency of depressed mood and anhedonia) and can be used as a first step to identify patients for evaluation with the full PHQ-9. Objective To estimate PHQ-2 accuracy alone and combined with the PHQ-9 for detecting major depression. Data sources MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, PsycINFO, and Web of Science (January 2000-May 2018). Study selection Eligible data sets compared PHQ-2 scores with major depression diagnoses from a validated diagnostic interview. Data extraction and synthesis Individual participant data were synthesized with bivariate random-effects meta-analysis to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity of the PHQ-2 alone among studies using semistructured, fully structured, or Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI) diagnostic interviews separately and in combination with the PHQ-9 vs the PHQ-9 alone for studies that used semistructured interviews. The PHQ-2 score ranges from 0 to 6, and the PHQ-9 score ranges from 0 to 27. Results Individual participant data were obtained from 100 of 136 eligible studies (44 318 participants; 4572 with major depression [10%]; mean [SD] age, 49 [17] years; 59% female). Among studies that used semistructured interviews, PHQ-2 sensitivity and specificity (95% CI) were 0.91 (0.88-0.94) and 0.67 (0.64-0.71) for cutoff scores of 2 or greater and 0.72 (0.67-0.77) and 0.85 (0.83-0.87) for cutoff scores of 3 or greater. Sensitivity was significantly greater for semistructured vs fully structured interviews. Specificity was not significantly different across the types of interviews. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.88 (0.86-0.89) for semistructured interviews, 0.82 (0.81-0.84) for fully structured interviews, and 0.87 (0.85-0.88) for the MINI. There were no significant subgroup differences. For semistructured interviews, sensitivity for PHQ-2 scores of 2 or greater followed by PHQ-9 scores of 10 or greater (0.82 [0.76-0.86]) was not significantly different than PHQ-9 scores of 10 or greater alone (0.86 [0.80-0.90]); specificity for the combination was significantly but minimally higher (0.87 [0.84-0.89] vs 0.85 [0.82-0.87]). The area under the curve was 0.90 (0.89-0.91). The combination was estimated to reduce the number of participants needing to complete the full PHQ-9 by 57% (56%-58%). Conclusions and relevance In an individual participant data meta-analysis of studies that compared PHQ scores with major depression diagnoses, the combination of PHQ-2 (with cutoff ≥2) followed by PHQ-9 (with cutoff ≥10) had similar sensitivity but higher specificity compared with PHQ-9 cutoff scores of 10 or greater alone. Further research is needed to understand the clinical and research value of this combined approach to screening.

Objectives: Depression symptom questionnaires are not for diagnostic classification. Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) scores >= 10 are nonetheless often used to estimate depression prevalence. We compared PHQ-9 >= 10 prevalence to Structured Clinical Interview for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (SCID) major depression prevalence and assessed whether an alternative PHQ-9 cutoff could more accurately estimate prevalence. Study Design and Setting: Individual participant data meta-analysis of datasets comparing PHQ-9 scores to SCID major depression status. Results: A total of 9,242 participants (1,389 SCID major depression cases) from 44 primary studies were included. Pooled PHQ-9 >= 10 prevalence was 24.6% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 20.8%, 28.9%); pooled SCID major depression prevalence was 12.1% (95% CI: 9.6%, 15.2%); and pooled difference was 11.9% (95% CI: 9.3%, 14.6%). The mean study-level PHQ-9 >= 10 to SCID-based prevalence ratio was 2.5 times. PHQ-9 >= 14 and the PHQ-9 diagnostic algorithm provided prevalence closest to SCID major depression prevalence, but study-level prevalence differed from SCID-based prevalence by an average absolute difference of 4.8% for PHQ-9 >= 14 (95% prediction interval: -13.6%, 14.5%) and 5.6% for the PHQ-9 diagnostic algorithm (95% prediction interval: -16.4%, 15.0%). Conclusion: PHQ-9 >= 10 substantially overestimates depression prevalence. There is too much heterogeneity to correct statistically in individual studies. (C) 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

IntroductionThe 30-item Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS-30) and the shorter GDS-15, GDS-5 and GDS-4 are recommended as depression screening tools for elderly individuals. Existing meta-analyses on the diagnostic accuracy of the GDS have not been able to conduct subgroup analyses, have included patients already identified as depressed who would not be screened in practice and have not accounted for possible bias due to selective reporting of results from only better-performing cut-offs in primary studies. Individual participant data meta-analysis (IPDMA), which involves a standard systematic review, then a synthesis of individual participant data, rather than summary results, could address these limitations. The objective of our IPDMA is to generate accuracy estimates to detect major depression for all possible cut-offs of each version of the GDS among studies using different reference standards, separately and among participant subgroups based on age, sex, dementia diagnosis and care settings. In addition, we will use a modelling approach to generate individual participant probabilities for major depression based on GDS scores (rather than a dichotomous cut-off) and participant characteristics (eg, sex, age, dementia status, care setting).Methods and analysisIndividual participant data comparing GDS scores to a major depression diagnosis based on a validated structured or semistructured diagnostic interview will be sought via a systematic review. Data sources will include Medline, Medline In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, PsycINFO and Web of Science. Bivariate random-effects models will be used to estimate diagnostic accuracy parameters for each cut-off of the different versions of the GDS. Prespecified subgroup analyses will be conducted. Risk of bias will be assessed with the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool.Ethics and disseminationThe findings of this study will be of interest to stakeholders involved in research, clinical practice and policy.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018104329.

BackgroundDifferent diagnostic interviews are used as reference standards for major depression classification in research. Semi-structured interviews involve clinical judgement, whereas fully structured interviews are completely scripted. The Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI), a brief fully structured interview, is also sometimes used. It is not known whether interview method is associated with probability of major depression classification.AimsTo evaluate the association between interview method and odds of major depression classification, controlling for depressive symptom scores and participant characteristics.MethodData collected for an individual participant data meta-analysis of Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) diagnostic accuracy were analysed and binomial generalised linear mixed models were fit.ResultsA total of 17 158 participants (2287 with major depression) from 57 primary studies were analysed. Among fully structured interviews, odds of major depression were higher for the MINI compared with the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI) (odds ratio (OR) = 2.10; 95% CI = 1.15–3.87). Compared with semi-structured interviews, fully structured interviews (MINI excluded) were non-significantly more likely to classify participants with low-level depressive symptoms (PHQ-9 scores ≤6) as having major depression (OR = 3.13; 95% CI = 0.98–10.00), similarly likely for moderate-level symptoms (PHQ-9 scores 7–15) (OR = 0.96; 95% CI = 0.56–1.66) and significantly less likely for high-level symptoms (PHQ-9 scores ≥16) (OR = 0.50; 95% CI = 0.26–0.97).ConclusionsThe MINI may identify more people as depressed than the CIDI, and semi-structured and fully structured interviews may not be interchangeable methods, but these results should be replicated.Declaration of interestDrs Jetté and Patten declare that they received a grant, outside the submitted work, from the Hotchkiss Brain Institute, which was jointly funded by the Institute and Pfizer. Pfizer was the original sponsor of the development of the PHQ-9, which is now in the public domain. Dr Chan is a steering committee member or consultant of Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Lilly, MSD and Pfizer. She has received sponsorships and honorarium for giving lectures and providing consultancy and her affiliated institution has received research grants from these companies. Dr Hegerl declares that within the past 3 years, he was an advisory board member for Lundbeck, Servier and Otsuka Pharma; a consultant for Bayer Pharma; and a speaker for Medice Arzneimittel, Novartis, and Roche Pharma, all outside the submitted work. Dr Inagaki declares that he has received grants from Novartis Pharma, lecture fees from Pfizer, Mochida, Shionogi, Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma, Daiichi-Sankyo, Meiji Seika and Takeda, and royalties from Nippon Hyoron Sha, Nanzando, Seiwa Shoten, Igaku-shoin and Technomics, all outside of the submitted work. Dr Yamada reports personal fees from Meiji Seika Pharma Co., Ltd., MSD K.K., Asahi Kasei Pharma Corporation, Seishin Shobo, Seiwa Shoten Co., Ltd., Igaku-shoin Ltd., Chugai Igakusha and Sentan Igakusha, all outside the submitted work. All other authors declare no competing interests. No funder had any role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis and interpretation of the data; preparation, review or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Health care spending in the United States has increased to unprecedented levels, and these costs have broken medical providers' promise to do no harm. Medical debt is the leading contributor to U.S. personal bankruptcy, more than 50% of household foreclosures are secondary to medical debt and illness, and patients are choosing to avoid necessary care because of its cost. Evidence that the health care delivery model is contributing to patient hardship is a call to action for the profession to transition to a high-value model, one that delivers the highest health care quality and safety at the lowest personal and financial cost to patients. As such, value improvement work is being done at academic medical centers across the country. To promote measurable improvements in practice on a national scale, academic institutions need to align efforts and create a new model for collaboration, one that transcends cross-institutional competition, specialty divisions, and geographical constraints. Academic institutions are particularly accountable because of the importance of research and education in driving this transition. Investigations that elucidate effective implementation methodologies and evaluate safety outcomes data can facilitate transformation. Engaging trainees in quality improvement initiatives will instill high-value care into their practice. This article charges academic institutions to go beyond dissemination of best practice guidelines and demonstrate accountability for high-value quality improvement implementation. By effectively transitioning to a high-value health care system, medical providers will convincingly demonstrate that patients are their most important priority.

Teaching residents to provide patient-centered care (PCC) is a challenge within traditional residency programs. We describe strategies developed to adapt a PCC curriculum from an existing program to a new one, highlighting components that were duplicated as well as those that were adapted to local needs. The authors compared their PCC curricula against known barriers to PCC teaching, identified strategies as shared or tailored in each domain, and described outcomes. Sixteen shared curricular strategies were identified. One hundred percent of pediatric residents (n = 20) “agreed or strongly agreed” that the newly adopted PCC strategies promote an understanding of patient-centered care. Success related to shared and tailored strategies may inform how PCC training models in other specialties may be developed.

Problem Creating and supporting opportunities for innovation that showcase and reward creativity in medical and biomedical education is critically important for academic institutions, learners, and faculty. Approach In 2014, the Institute for Excellence in Education at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine created a small grant program called Education Shark Tank, in which two to five finalist teams present their proposals on innovative initiatives to improve education to four or five senior educator "sharks" at an educational conference, with an audience. The sharks then "grill" the presenters, considering which if any to fund, focusing on the rationale, feasibility, appropriateness of the outcome measures, evaluation and assessment plan, and proposed method of dissemination. They also make suggestions that challenge the presenters to assess and improve their designs. Outcomes In the program's first year (2014), funds were divided equally between two projects, both of which were successfully completed and one of which led to a journal publication; this led to increased funding for the program in 2015. Participants have called Education Shark Tank a "challenging and rewarding experience." Next steps Education Shark Tank can facilitate educational innovation and scholarship via engaging and challenging interactions between grant applicants and reviewers in a public venue. The authors plan to conduct a five-year survey (after 2018) of all Education Shark Tank finalists to determine the success and challenges the funded projects have had, what scholarly dissemination has occurred, whether nonfunded projects were able to move forward, and the value of the feedback and mentoring received.

In studies of diagnostic test accuracy, authors sometimes report results only for a range of cutoff points around data-driven "optimal" cutoffs. We assessed selective cutoff reporting in studies of the diagnostic accuracy of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) depression screening tool. We compared conventional meta-analysis of published results only with individual-patient-data meta-analysis of results derived from all cutoff points, using data from 13 of 16 studies published during 2004-2009 that were included in a published conventional meta-analysis. For the "standard" PHQ-9 cutoff of 10, accuracy results had been published by 11 of the studies. For all other relevant cutoffs, 3-6 studies published accuracy results. For all cutoffs examined, specificity estimates in conventional and individual-patient-data meta-analyses were within 1% of each other. Sensitivity estimates were similar for the cutoff of 10 but differed by 5%-15% for other cutoffs. In samples where the PHQ-9 was poorly sensitive at the standard cutoff, authors tended to report results for lower cutoffs that yielded optimal results. When the PHQ-9 was highly sensitive, authors more often reported results for higher cutoffs. Consequently, in the conventional meta-analysis, sensitivity increased as cutoff severity increased across part of the cutoff range-an impossibility if all data are analyzed. In sum, selective reporting by primary study authors of only results from cutoffs that perform well in their study can bias accuracy estimates in meta-analyses of published results.

Objective Two previous individual participant data meta-analyses (IPDMAs) found that different diagnostic interviews classify different proportions of people as having major depression overall or by symptom levels. We compared the odds of major depression classification across diagnostic interviews among studies that administered the Depression subscale of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS-D). Methods Data accrued for an IPDMA on HADS-D diagnostic accuracy were analysed. We fit binomial generalized linear mixed models to compare odds of major depression classification for the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM (SCID), Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI), and Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI), controlling for HADS-D scores and participant characteristics with and without an interaction term between interview and HADS-D scores. Results There were 15,856 participants (1942 [12%] with major depression) from 73 studies, including 15,335 (97%) non-psychiatric medical patients, 164 (1%) partners of medical patients, and 357 (2%) healthy adults. The MINI (27 studies, 7345 participants, 1066 major depression cases) classified participants as having major depression more often than the CIDI (10 studies, 3023 participants, 269 cases) (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.70 (0.84, 3.43)) and the semi-structured SCID (36 studies, 5488 participants, 607 cases) (aOR = 1.52 (1.01, 2.30)). The odds ratio for major depression classification with the CIDI was less likely to increase as HADS-D scores increased than for the SCID (interaction aOR = 0.92 (0.88, 0.96)). Conclusion Compared to the SCID, the MINI may diagnose more participants as having major depression, and the CIDI may be less responsive to symptom severity.

BackgroundItem 9 of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) queries about thoughts of death and self-harm, but not suicidality. Although it is sometimes used to assess suicide risk, most positive responses are not associated with suicidality. The PHQ-8, which omits Item 9, is thus increasingly used in research. We assessed equivalency of total score correlations and the diagnostic accuracy to detect major depression of the PHQ-8 and PHQ-9.MethodsWe conducted an individual patient data meta-analysis. We fit bivariate random-effects models to assess diagnostic accuracy.Results16 742 participants (2097 major depression cases) from 54 studies were included. The correlation between PHQ-8 and PHQ-9 scores was 0.996 (95% confidence interval 0.996 to 0.996). The standard cutoff score of 10 for the PHQ-9 maximized sensitivity + specificity for the PHQ-8 among studies that used a semi-structured diagnostic interview reference standard (N = 27). At cutoff 10, the PHQ-8 was less sensitive by 0.02 (−0.06 to 0.00) and more specific by 0.01 (0.00 to 0.01) among those studies (N = 27), with similar results for studies that used other types of interviews (N = 27). For all 54 primary studies combined, across all cutoffs, the PHQ-8 was less sensitive than the PHQ-9 by 0.00 to 0.05 (0.03 at cutoff 10), and specificity was within 0.01 for all cutoffs (0.00 to 0.01).ConclusionsPHQ-8 and PHQ-9 total scores were similar. Sensitivity may be minimally reduced with the PHQ-8, but specificity is similar.

Background: Screening for major depression with the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) can be done using a cutoff or the PHQ-9 diagnostic algorithm. Many primary studies publish results for only one approach, and previous meta-analyses of the algorithm approach included only a subset of primary studies that collected data and could have published results. Objective: To use an individual participant data meta-analysis to evaluate the accuracy of two PHQ-9 diagnostic algorithms for detecting major depression and compare accuracy between the algorithms and the standard PHQ-9 cutoff score of ≥10. Methods: Medline, Medline In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, PsycINFO, Web of Science (January 1, 2000, to February 7, 2015). Eligible studies that classified current major depression status using a validated diagnostic interview. Results: Data were included for 54 of 72 identified eligible studies (n participants = 16,688, n cases = 2,091). Among studies that used a semi-structured interview, pooled sensitivity and specificity (95% confidence interval) were 0.57 (0.49, 0.64) and 0.95 (0.94, 0.97) for the original algorithm and 0.61 (0.54, 0.68) and 0.95 (0.93, 0.96) for a modified algorithm. Algorithm sensitivity was 0.22–0.24 lower compared to fully structured interviews and 0.06–0.07 lower compared to the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview. Specificity was similar across reference standards. For PHQ-9 cutoff of ≥10 compared to semi-structured interviews, sensitivity and specificity (95% confidence interval) were 0.88 (0.82–0.92) and 0.86 (0.82–0.88). Conclusions: The cutoff score approach appears to be a better option than a PHQ-9 algorithm for detecting major depression.

Data on the perceptions of scientists suggest a moderate public distrust of scientist's motivations. Bettridge et al. suggest scientist's reluctance to engage the public on controversial ethical issues may be a contributing factor. The authors propose a Scientist's Oath to send a clear message to the public about our ideals.

Increasing attention is being paid to medical student and resident well-being, as well as to enhancing resilience and avoiding burnout in medical trainees. Medical schools and residency programs are implementing wellness initiatives that often include meditation and other mindfulness activities, sel

BACKGROUND: Item 9 of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) queries about thoughts of death and self-harm, but not suicidality. Although it is sometimes used to assess suicide risk, most positive responses are not associated with suicidality. The PHQ-8, which omits Item 9, is thus increasingly used in research. We assessed equivalency of total score correlations and the diagnostic accuracy to detect major depression of the PHQ-8 and PHQ-9. METHODS: We conducted an individual patient data meta-analysis. We fit bivariate random-effects models to assess diagnostic accuracy. RESULTS: 16,742 participants (2,097 major depression cases) from 54 studies were included. The correlation between PHQ-8 and PHQ-9 scores was 0·996 (95% confidence interval 0·996 to 0·996). The standard cutoff score of 10 for the PHQ-9 maximized sensitivity + specificity for the PHQ-8 among studies that used a semi-structured diagnostic interview reference standard (N = 27). At cutoff 10, the PHQ-8 was less sensitive by 0·02 (−0·06 to 0·00) and more specific by 0·01 (0·00 to 0·01) among those studies (N = 27), with similar results for studies that used other types of interviews (N = 27). For all 54 primary studies combined, across all cutoffs, the PHQ-8 was less sensitive than the PHQ-9 by 0·00 to 0·05 (0·03 at cutoff 10), and specificity was within 0·01 for all cutoffs (0·00 to 0·01). CONCLUSIONS: PHQ-8 and PHQ-9 total scores were similar. Sensitivity may be minimally reduced with the PHQ-8, but specificity is similar.

Depression in patients with cardiovascular disease is associated with increased risk of adverse clinical outcomes. Investigators have searched for potential biobehavioral explanations for this increased risk. Platelet activation and response to serotonin is an attractive potential mechanism. The aim of the study was to examine platelet serotonin signaling in a group of patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) and comorbid depression to define the relationship between platelet serotonin signaling and cardiovascular complications.A total of 300 patients with CAD were enrolled (145 with acute coronary syndrome and 155 with stable CAD). Depression was assessed using the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV as well as Beck Depression Inventory II in a dichotomous and continuous manner. Platelet serotonin response was measured by serotonin augmented aggregation, direct platelet serotonin activation, platelet serotonin receptor density, and platelet serotonin uptake. Cardiovascular outcomes were assessed at 12-month follow-up.One third of enrolled participants had at least minimal depressive symptoms and 13.6% had major depressive disorder. Depressed cardiovascular patients had significantly higher incidence of major (odds ratio = 3.43, 95% confidence interval = 1.49-7.91, p = .004) and minor (odds ratio = 2.42, 95% confidence interval = 1.41-4.13, p = .001) adverse cardiac events. Platelet serotonin response was not significantly different in patients with depression. Participants with major depressive disorder had higher serotonin receptor density (997.5 ± 840.8 vs 619.3 ± 744.3 fmol/ug, p = .009) primarily found in ACS patients. Depressed patients with minor adverse cardiac events had increased platelet response to serotonin.Depressed cardiovascular patients had higher serotonin receptor density and significantly higher incidence of major and minor cardiac adverse events. Future studies with larger sample sizes including patients with more severe depression are needed to expand on the present hypothesis-generating findings.

What you need to know Depression is usually identified when patients report symptoms or when clinicians recognise them through routine assessment of patient wellbeing. Screening can potentially increase rates of depression recognition. Depression screening involves administering a symptom questionnaire to all patients not known or not suspected of having depression. It is intended to identify symptomatic people who may not otherwise be recognised or seek treatment.12 A cut-off is used to classify positive and negative results, with further assessment of those with positive results, and, as appropriate, management. The Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) is among the most used depression screening tools in primary care.3 In the UK, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) encourages general practitioners to be alert to possible depression, but not to screen routinely.4 The National Screening Committee recommends against screening.5 Depression screening in general practice was financially incentivised by the UK Quality and Outcomes Framework from 2006 to 2013 but was subsequently removed owing to disappointing results; almost 1000 patients had to be screened for each new depression diagnosis and almost 700 for each new antidepressant prescription.6 In North America, the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (CTFPHC) recommends against screening,7 whereas the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends screening all primary care patients “with adequate systems in place to ensure accurate diagnosis, effective treatment, and appropriate follow-up.”8 …

Background Patient-centred care is an important aspect of quality health care. The learning environment may impact medical students’ adoption of patient-centred behaviours. Methods All medical students at a single institution received an anonymous, modified version of the Communication, Curriculum, and Culture instrument that measures patient-centredness in the training environment along three domains: role modelling, students’ experience, and support for patient-centred behaviours. We compared domain scores and individual items by class year and gender, and qualitatively analyzed responses to two additional items that asked students to describe experiences that demonstrated varying degrees of patient-centredness. Results Year 1 and 2 students reported greater patient-centredness than year 3 and 4 students in each domain: role modelling (p = 0.03), students’ experience (p =

The promise of precision medicine is based on the use of new technologies to better characterize patients by defining individuals in the areas of genomics, proteomics, metabolomics and other aspects of biologic variability. Wise application of modern technology can similarly transform health visits with patients, allowing for better characterization of the patient’s individual life circumstances than possible in a traditional office visit. The use of, and experience with, telemedicine have increased significantly during the COVID-19 pandemic. Patients and clinicians report high satisfaction with telemedicine, and the quality of communication and patient-centeredness experienced in this setting are both rated highly. In this article, we explore the benefits offered by telemedicine in facilitating personalized care with particular focus on telemedicine delivered by video platforms. We propose strategies and skills specific to the effective implementation of personalized telemedicine, drawing on literature in patient-centered communication and home visits. While traditional in-person office visits continue to offer important opportunities such as thorough physical examination and the potential for enhanced non-verbal communication, telemedicine offers many important advantages that can facilitate the process of getting to know the patient as a person.

Objectives: A previous individual participant data meta-analysis (IPDMA) identified differences in major depression classification rates between different diagnostic interviews, controlling for depressive symptoms on the basis of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9. We aimed to determine whether similar results would be seen in a different population, using studies that administered the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) in pregnancy or postpartum. Methods: Data accrued for an EPDS diagnostic accuracy IPDMA were analysed. Binomial generalised linear mixed models were fit to compare depression classification odds for the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI), Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI), and Structured Clinical Interview for DSM (SCID), controlling for EPDS scores and participant characteristics. Results: Among fully structured interviews, the MINI (15 studies, 2,532 participants, 342 major depression cases) classified depression more often than the CIDI (3 studies, 2,948 participants, 194 major depression cases; adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 3.72, 95% confidence interval [CI] [1.21, 11.43]). Compared with the semistructured SCID (28 studies, 7,403 participants, 1,027 major depression cases), odds with the CIDI (interaction aOR = 0.88, 95% CI [0.85, 0.92]) and MINI (interaction aOR = 0.95, 95% CI [0.92, 0.99]) increased less as EPDS scores increased. Conclusion: Different interviews may not classify major depression equivalently., This study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR, KRS-140994). Ms. Levis was supported by a CIHR Frederick Banting and Charles Best Canada Graduate Scholarship Doctoral Awards. Ms. Rice was supported by a Vanier Canada Graduate Scholarship. Dr. Wu was supported by an Utting Postdoctoral Fellowship from the Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Ms. Azar was supported by a Fonds de recherche du Québec - Santé (FRQS) Masters Training Award. Mr. Bhandari was supported by a studentship from the Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre. The primary study by Alvarado et al. was supported by the Ministry of Health of Chile. The primary study by Barnes et al. was supported by a grant from the Health Foundation (1665/608). The primary study by Beck et al. was supported by the Patrick and Catherine Weldon Donaghue Medical Research Foundation and the University of Connecticut Research Foundation. The primary study by Helle et al. was supported by the Werner Otto Foundation, the Kroschke Foundation, and the Feindt Foundation. Prof. Robertas Bunevicius, MD, PhD (1958–2016) was principal investigator of the primary study by Bunevicius et al. but passed away and was unable to participate in this project. The primary study by Couto et al. was supported by the National Counsel of Technological and Scientific Development (CNPq; Grant 444254/2014-5) and the Minas Gerais State Research Foundation (FAPEMIG; Grant APQ-01954-14). The primary study by Chaudron et al. was supported by a grant from the National Institute of Mental Health (Grant K23 MH64476). The primary study by Figueira et al. was supported by the Brazilian Ministry of Health and by the National Counsel of Technological and Scientific Development (CNPq; Grant 403433/2004-5). The primary study by de Figueiredo et al. was supported by Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo. The primary study by Tissot et al. was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation (Grant 32003B 125493). The primary study by Fernandes et al. was supported by grants from the Child: Care Health and Development Trust and the Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK, and by the Ashok Ranganathan Bursary from Exeter College, University of Oxford. Dr. Fernandes was supported by a National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) academic clinical fellowship. The primary study by Tendais et al. was supported under the project POCI/SAU-ESP/56397/2004 by the Operational Program Science and Innovation 2010 (POCI 2010) of the Community Support Board III and by the European Community Fund FEDER. The primary study by Fisher et al. was supported by a grant under the Invest to Grow Scheme from the Australian Government Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. The primary study by Garcia-Esteve et al. was supported by Grant 7/98 from the Ministerio de Trabajo y Asuntos Sociales, Women's Institute, Spain. The primary study by Howard et al. was supported by the NIHR under its Programme Grants for Applied Research Programme (Grants RP-PG-1210-12002 and RPDG-1108-10012) and by the South London Clinical Research Network. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR, or the Department of Health and Social Care. The primary study by Phillips et al. was supported by a scholarship from the National Health and Medical and Research Council (NHMRC). The primary study by Roomruangwong et al. was supported by the Ratchadaphiseksomphot Endowment Fund 2013 of Chulalongkorn University (CU-56-457-HR). The primary study by Naki c Radoš et al. was supported by the Croatian Ministry of Science, Education, and Sports. The primary study by Navarro et al. was supported by Grant 13/00 from the Ministry of Work and Social Affairs, Institute of Women, Spain. The primary study by Usuda et al. was supported by Grants-in-Aid for Young Scientists (A) from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (primary investigator: Daisuke Nishi, MD, PhD) and by an Intramural Research Grant for Neurological and Psychiatric Disorders from the National Center of Neurology and Psychiatry, Japan. Dr. Robertson-Blackmore was supported by a Young Investigator Award from the Brain and Behavior Research Foundation and NIMH Grant K23MH080290. The primary study by Rochat et al. was supported by grants from University of Oxford (HQ5035), the Tuixen Foundation (9940), the Wellcome Trust (082384/Z/07/Z and 071571), and the American Psychological Association. Dr. Rochat receives salary support from a Wellcome Trust Intermediate Fellowship (211374/Z/18/Z). The primary study by Rowe et al. was supported by the diamond Consortium, beyondblue Victorian Centre of Excellence in Depression and Related Disorders. The primary study by Comasco et al. was supported by funds from the Swedish Research Council (VR: 521-2013-2339, VR: 523-2014-2342), the Swedish Council for Working Life and Social Research (FAS: 2011-0627), the Marta Lundqvist Foundation (2013, 2014), and the Swedish Society of Medicine (SLS-331991). The primary study by Prenoveau et al. was supported by the Wellcome Trust (Grant 071571). The primary study by Stewart et al. was supported by Professor Francis Creed's Journal of Psychosomatic Research Editorship fund (BA00457) administered through University of Manchester. The primary study by Su et al. was supported by grants from the Department of Health (DOH94F044 and DOH95F022) and the China Medical University and Hospital (CMU94-105, DMR-92-92, and DMR94-46). The primary study by Tandon et al. was supported by the Thomas Wilson Sanitarium. The primary study by Tran et al. was supported by the Myer Foundation who funded the study under its Beyond Australia scheme. Dr. Tran was supported by an early career fellowship from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. The primary study by Vega-Dienstmaier et al. was supported by Tejada Family Foundation, Inc. and Peruvian-American Endowment, Inc. The primary study by Yonkers et al. was supported by a National Institute of Child Health and Human Development grant (5 R01HD045735). Drs. Benedetti and Thombs were supported by FRQS researcher salary awards.

Personalized tools relevant to an individual patient’s unique characteristics may be an important component of personalized health care. We randomized 97 patients hospitalized with acute decompensated heart failure to receive a printout of an ultrasound image of their inferior vena cava (IVC) with an explanation of how the image is related to their fluid status (n = 50) or to receive no image and only generic heart failure information (n = 47). Adherence to medications, low-sodium diet, and daily weight measurement at baseline and 30 days after discharge were assessed using the Medical Outcomes Study Specific Adherence Scale, modified to a three-item version for heart failure (HF), (MOSSAS-3HF, maximum score = 15, indicating adherence all of the time). The baseline MOSSAS-3HF scores (mean ± standard deviation (SD)) were similar for intervention and control groups (7.4 ± 3.4 vs. 6.4 ± 3.7, p = 0.91). The MOSSAS-3HF scores improved for both groups but were not different at 30 days (11.8 ± 2.8 vs. 11.7 ± 3.0, p = 0.90). Survival without readmission or emergency department (ED) visit at 30 days was similar (82.6% vs. 84.1%, p = 0.85). A personalized HF tool did not affect rates of self-reported HF treatment adherence or survival without readmission or ED visit.

Background : Teaching interns patient-centered communication skills, including making structured telephone calls to patients following discharge, may improve transitions of care. Objective : To explore associations between a patient-centered care (PCC) curriculum and patients’ perspectives of the quality of transitional care. Methods : We implemented a novel PCC curriculum on one of four inpatient general medicine resident teaching teams in which interns make post-discharge telephone calls to patients, contact outpatient providers, perform medication adherence reviews, and engage in patient-centered discharge planning. Between July and November of 2011, we conducted telephone surveys of patients from all four teaching teams within 30 days of discharge. In addition to asking if patients received a call from their hospital physician (intern), we administered the 3-Item Care Transitions Measure (CTM-3), which assesses patients’ perceptions of preparedness for the transition from hospital to home (possible score range 0–100). Results : The CTM-3 scores (mean±SD) of PCC team patients and standard team patients were not significantly different (82.4±17.3 vs. 79.6±17.6, p =0.53). However, regardless of team assignment, patients who reported receiving a post-discharge telephone call had significantly higher CTM-3 scores than those who did not (84.7±16.0 vs. 78.2±17.4, p =0.03). Interns exposed to the PCC curriculum called their patients after discharge more often than interns never exposed (OR=2.78, 95% CI [1.25, 6.18], p =0.013). Conclusions : The post-discharge telephone call, one element of PCC, was associated with higher CTM-3 scores – which, in turn, have been shown to lessen patients’ risk of emergency department visits within 30 days of discharge. Keywords: patient-centered care; graduate medical education; post-discharge telephone call; care transitions (Published: 29 April 2015) Citation: Med Educ Online 2015, 20: 26701 - http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/meo.v20.26701

Clinical practice guidelines have been developed for many common conditions based on data from randomized controlled trials. When medicine is informed solely by clinical practice guidelines, however, the patient is not treated as an individual, but rather as member of a group. Precision medicine, as defined herein, characterizes unique biological characteristics of the individual or of specimens obtained from an individual to tailor diagnostics and therapeutics to a specific patient. These unique biological characteristics are defined by the tools of precision medicine: genomics, proteomics, metabolomics, epigenomics, pharmacogenomics, and other “-omics.” Personalized medicine, as defined herein, uses additional information about the individual derived from knowing the patient as a person. These unique personal characteristics are defined by the tools of personalized medicine—personomics—which take into account an individual’s personality, preferences, values, goals, health beliefs, social support network, financial resources, and unique life circumstances that affect how and when a given health condition will manifest in that person and how that condition will respond to treatment. In this paradigm, precision medicine may be considered a necessary step in the evolution of medical care to personalized medicine, with personomics as the missing link.

Objective Certain personality and behavioral traits (e.g., type A and type D) have been reported to be associated with development and progression of coronary heart disease (CHD), but few have examined the relationship using a comprehensive assessment of personality along with a structured assessment of psychiatric disorders. Methods Based on participants (age: 47.3 ± 12.8; female: 62.6%) of the Baltimore Epidemiologic Catchment Area follow-up study, we examined the relationship between the 5 major domains of personality traits ( neuroticism , extraversion , openness , agreeableness , and conscientiousness ) and incident CHD between Wave III (1993–1996) and Wave IV(2004–2005). Results Incident CHD developed in 65 participants during the follow-up. Those with incident CHD had lower on openness (44.06 ± 9.29 vs 47.18 ± 8.80; p = 0.007) and extraversion (45.98 ± 9.25 vs 49.12 ± 8.92; p = 0.007) scores than those without. Logistic regression models revealed an inverse association (OR = 0.73; 95% CI=0.54–0.98) between openness factor z-scores and incident CHD after adjusting for putative confounding factors, including DSM III-R Major Depressive Disorder. Conclusion High openness appears to be an independent protective factor for incident CHD in the community. Future studies should examine behavioral and pathophysiologic mechanisms underlying this association.

Background Major depression is an independent predictor of increased mortality in patients presenting with acute coronary syndromes (ACS). There have been several mechanisms proposed to explain the link between depression and ischemic heart disease. Both abnormal platelet physiology and inflammation have been suggested as potential confounding variables. Objective We set out to examine platelet activation, inflammation, and levels of depression in hospitalized patients presenting with ACS. Methods We enrolled 28 patients with ACS and assessed levels of depression by PHQ-9. Platelet activation was assessed by the measurement of platelet microparticle levels and platelet aggregation to adenosine diphosphate and serotonin. Inflammatory markers were assessed by the measurement of TNF alpha, IL-6, and CRP. Results We found that ACS patients with moderate depressive symptoms who had higher TNF alpha, IL-6, and CRP levels had higher levels of platelet microparticles. We also found that ACS patients with PHQ-9 ≥ 10 had higher platelet aggregation to ADP. Conclusion Our results suggest that patients hospitalized for the treatment of an ACS who have moderate depression have increased platelet aggregation. These patients also have a positive association between elevated inflammatory markers and platelet activation, thus suggesting a pro-inflammatory component in ACS patients with depressive symptoms that may alter platelet function. These results are intriguing in that a potential pathway to explain the connection between depression, inflammation, and increased cardiovascular thrombosis might be found when both platelet activation and inflammation are measured.