Abstract
Background: Although depression is common among patients receiving maintenance hemodialysis, data on their acceptance of treatment and on the comparative efficacy of various therapies are limited. Objective: To determine the effect of an engagement interview on treatment acceptance (phase 1) and to compare the efficacy of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) versus sertraline (phase 2) for treating depression in patients receiving hemodialysis. Design: Multicenter, parallel-group, open-label, randomized controlled trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02358343) Setting: 41 dialysis facilities in 3 U.S. metropolitan areas. Participants: Patients who had been receiving hemodialysis for at least 3 months and had a Beck Depression Inventory-II score of 15 or greater; 184 patients participated in phase 1, and 120 subsequently participated in phase 2. Intervention: Engagement interview versus control visit (phase 1) and 12 weeks of CBT delivered in the dialysis facility versus sertraline treatment (phase 2). Measurements: The primary outcome for phase 1 was the proportion of participants who started depression treatment within 28 days. For phase 2, the primary outcome was depressive symptoms measured by the Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptoms Clinician-Rated (QIDS-C) at 12 weeks. Results: The proportion of participants who initiated treatment after the engagement or control visit did not differ (66% vs. 64%, respectively; P = 0.77; estimated risk difference, 2.1 [95% CI, _12.1 to 16.4]). Compared with CBT, sertraline treatment resulted in lower QIDS-C depression scores at 12 weeks (effect estimate, _1.84 [CI, _3.54 to _0.13]; P = 0.035). Adverse events were more frequent in the sertraline than the CBT group. Limitation: No randomized comparison was made with no treatment, and persistence of treatment effect was not assessed. Conclusion: An engagement interview with patients receiving maintenance hemodialysis had no effect on their acceptance of treatment for depression. After 12 weeks of treatment, depression scores were modestly better with sertraline treatment than with CBT. Primary Funding Source: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, Dialysis Clinic, Kidney Research Institute, and National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases.
| Original language | English (US) |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 369-379 |
| Number of pages | 11 |
| Journal | Annals of internal medicine |
| Volume | 170 |
| Issue number | 6 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - Jan 1 2019 |
| Externally published | Yes |
Fingerprint
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Internal Medicine
Cite this
Comparative efficacy of therapies for treatment of depression for patients undergoing maintenance hemodialysis. / Mehrotra, Rajnish; Cukor, Daniel; Unruh, Mark; Rue, Tessa; Heagerty, Patrick; Cohen, Scott D.; Dember, Laura M.; Diaz-Linhart, Yaminette; Dubovsky, Amelia; Greene, Tom; Grote, Nancy; Kutner, Nancy; Trivedi, Madhukar H; Quinn, Davin K.; Halen, Nishaver; Weisbord, Steven D.; Young, Bessie A.; Kimmel, Paul L.; Hedayati, S S.
In: Annals of internal medicine, Vol. 170, No. 6, 01.01.2019, p. 369-379.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparative efficacy of therapies for treatment of depression for patients undergoing maintenance hemodialysis
AU - Mehrotra, Rajnish
AU - Cukor, Daniel
AU - Unruh, Mark
AU - Rue, Tessa
AU - Heagerty, Patrick
AU - Cohen, Scott D.
AU - Dember, Laura M.
AU - Diaz-Linhart, Yaminette
AU - Dubovsky, Amelia
AU - Greene, Tom
AU - Grote, Nancy
AU - Kutner, Nancy
AU - Trivedi, Madhukar H
AU - Quinn, Davin K.
AU - Halen, Nishaver
AU - Weisbord, Steven D.
AU - Young, Bessie A.
AU - Kimmel, Paul L.
AU - Hedayati, S S
PY - 2019/1/1
Y1 - 2019/1/1
N2 - Background: Although depression is common among patients receiving maintenance hemodialysis, data on their acceptance of treatment and on the comparative efficacy of various therapies are limited. Objective: To determine the effect of an engagement interview on treatment acceptance (phase 1) and to compare the efficacy of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) versus sertraline (phase 2) for treating depression in patients receiving hemodialysis. Design: Multicenter, parallel-group, open-label, randomized controlled trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02358343) Setting: 41 dialysis facilities in 3 U.S. metropolitan areas. Participants: Patients who had been receiving hemodialysis for at least 3 months and had a Beck Depression Inventory-II score of 15 or greater; 184 patients participated in phase 1, and 120 subsequently participated in phase 2. Intervention: Engagement interview versus control visit (phase 1) and 12 weeks of CBT delivered in the dialysis facility versus sertraline treatment (phase 2). Measurements: The primary outcome for phase 1 was the proportion of participants who started depression treatment within 28 days. For phase 2, the primary outcome was depressive symptoms measured by the Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptoms Clinician-Rated (QIDS-C) at 12 weeks. Results: The proportion of participants who initiated treatment after the engagement or control visit did not differ (66% vs. 64%, respectively; P = 0.77; estimated risk difference, 2.1 [95% CI, _12.1 to 16.4]). Compared with CBT, sertraline treatment resulted in lower QIDS-C depression scores at 12 weeks (effect estimate, _1.84 [CI, _3.54 to _0.13]; P = 0.035). Adverse events were more frequent in the sertraline than the CBT group. Limitation: No randomized comparison was made with no treatment, and persistence of treatment effect was not assessed. Conclusion: An engagement interview with patients receiving maintenance hemodialysis had no effect on their acceptance of treatment for depression. After 12 weeks of treatment, depression scores were modestly better with sertraline treatment than with CBT. Primary Funding Source: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, Dialysis Clinic, Kidney Research Institute, and National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases.
AB - Background: Although depression is common among patients receiving maintenance hemodialysis, data on their acceptance of treatment and on the comparative efficacy of various therapies are limited. Objective: To determine the effect of an engagement interview on treatment acceptance (phase 1) and to compare the efficacy of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) versus sertraline (phase 2) for treating depression in patients receiving hemodialysis. Design: Multicenter, parallel-group, open-label, randomized controlled trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02358343) Setting: 41 dialysis facilities in 3 U.S. metropolitan areas. Participants: Patients who had been receiving hemodialysis for at least 3 months and had a Beck Depression Inventory-II score of 15 or greater; 184 patients participated in phase 1, and 120 subsequently participated in phase 2. Intervention: Engagement interview versus control visit (phase 1) and 12 weeks of CBT delivered in the dialysis facility versus sertraline treatment (phase 2). Measurements: The primary outcome for phase 1 was the proportion of participants who started depression treatment within 28 days. For phase 2, the primary outcome was depressive symptoms measured by the Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptoms Clinician-Rated (QIDS-C) at 12 weeks. Results: The proportion of participants who initiated treatment after the engagement or control visit did not differ (66% vs. 64%, respectively; P = 0.77; estimated risk difference, 2.1 [95% CI, _12.1 to 16.4]). Compared with CBT, sertraline treatment resulted in lower QIDS-C depression scores at 12 weeks (effect estimate, _1.84 [CI, _3.54 to _0.13]; P = 0.035). Adverse events were more frequent in the sertraline than the CBT group. Limitation: No randomized comparison was made with no treatment, and persistence of treatment effect was not assessed. Conclusion: An engagement interview with patients receiving maintenance hemodialysis had no effect on their acceptance of treatment for depression. After 12 weeks of treatment, depression scores were modestly better with sertraline treatment than with CBT. Primary Funding Source: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, Dialysis Clinic, Kidney Research Institute, and National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85063918614&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85063918614&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1093/ndt/gfr778
DO - 10.1093/ndt/gfr778
M3 - Article
C2 - 22273670
AN - SCOPUS:85063918614
VL - 170
SP - 369
EP - 379
JO - Annals of Internal Medicine
JF - Annals of Internal Medicine
SN - 0003-4819
IS - 6
ER -