Comparative Efficacy of Therapies for Treatment of Depression for Patients Undergoing Maintenance Hemodialysis: A Randomized Clinical Trial.


Journal

Annals of internal medicine
ISSN: 1539-3704
Titre abrégé: Ann Intern Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0372351

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
19 03 2019
Historique:
pubmed: 26 2 2019
medline: 8 1 2020
entrez: 26 2 2019
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

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. 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. Multicenter, parallel-group, open-label, randomized controlled trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02358343). 41 dialysis facilities in 3 U.S. metropolitan areas. 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. Engagement interview versus control visit (phase 1) and 12 weeks of CBT delivered in the dialysis facility versus sertraline treatment (phase 2). 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. 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. No randomized comparison was made with no treatment, and persistence of treatment effect was not assessed. 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. Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, Dialysis Clinic, Kidney Research Institute, and National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases.

Sections du résumé

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.

Identifiants

pubmed: 30802897
pii: 2726666
doi: 10.7326/M18-2229
doi:

Substances chimiques

Antidepressive Agents 0
Sertraline QUC7NX6WMB

Banques de données

ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT02358343']

Types de publication

Journal Article Multicenter Study Randomized Controlled Trial Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

369-379

Subventions

Organisme : NIDDK NIH HHS
ID : R01 DK085512
Pays : United States

Commentaires et corrections

Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn

Auteurs

Rajnish Mehrotra (R)

University of Washington, Seattle, Washington (R.M., T.R., P.H., A.D., N.G.).

Daniel Cukor (D)

State University of New York Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, New York (D.C., N.V.).

Mark Unruh (M)

University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico (M.U., D.K.Q.).

Tessa Rue (T)

University of Washington, Seattle, Washington (R.M., T.R., P.H., A.D., N.G.).

Patrick Heagerty (P)

University of Washington, Seattle, Washington (R.M., T.R., P.H., A.D., N.G.).

Scott D Cohen (SD)

George Washington University, Washington, DC (S.D.C.).

Laura M Dember (LM)

University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (L.M.D.).

Yaminette Diaz-Linhart (Y)

Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts (Y.D.).

Amelia Dubovsky (A)

University of Washington, Seattle, Washington (R.M., T.R., P.H., A.D., N.G.).

Tom Greene (T)

University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah (T.G.).

Nancy Grote (N)

University of Washington, Seattle, Washington (R.M., T.R., P.H., A.D., N.G.).

Nancy Kutner (N)

Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia (N.K.).

Madhukar H Trivedi (MH)

University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, Texas (M.H.T., S.S.H.).

Davin K Quinn (DK)

University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico (M.U., D.K.Q.).

Nisha Ver Halen (N)

State University of New York Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, New York (D.C., N.V.).

Steven D Weisbord (SD)

Veterans Affairs Pittsburgh Healthcare System and University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (S.D.W.).

Bessie A Young (BA)

Veterans Affairs Puget Sound Health Care System and University of Washington, Seattle, Washington (B.A.Y.).

Paul L Kimmel (PL)

National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland (P.L.K.).

S Susan Hedayati (SS)

University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, Texas (M.H.T., S.S.H.).

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH