Faculty Bibliography

IMPORTANCE:Latinx individuals with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) constitute 19% of US patients receiving in-center scheduled hemodialysis. Compared with non-Latinx White patients, Latinx individuals often face poor economic, environmental, and living circumstances. The challenges for health care professionals engendered by these circumstances when Latinx individuals present with ESKD and possible solutions have not been well described. OBJECTIVE:To examine the perceptions of interdisciplinary health care professionals who work in dialysis centers in urban settings with large racial and ethnic minority populations about how social challenges affect the care of Latinx patients with ESKD. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:This qualitative study administered semistructured interviews of interdisciplinary health care professionals at 4 urban dialysis centers in Denver, Colorado, from April 1 to June 30, 2019. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using thematic analysis. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES:Themes and subthemes of barriers to care. RESULTS:Thirty interdisciplinary dialysis center health care professionals (23 [77%] female; mean [SD] age, 42.0 [11.6] years) participated. Four themes were identified. The first 3 themes and their respective subthemes (in parentheses) describe challenges to kidney care: compromised quality of care attributable to communication and cultural barriers (language interpretation by telephone, in-person language interpretation, burden of ad hoc interpretation, low-quality health care, lack of language- and culturally concordant materials, and health literacy levels), difficulty with health care access (unreliable transportation, economic instability, and loss of insurance benefits), and concerns about patient psychosocial well-being (social isolation, hopelessness, stigma of illness, and balancing personal social challenges). The fourth theme describes solutions to improve care (culturally responsive care, patient empowerment and activation, supporting primary caregivers, and peer support with navigation of the health care system). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:This study's findings suggest that dialysis center policies are needed that require high-quality language interpretation and the availability of culturally concordant educational materials. Community-based interventions that improve patient activation and provide peer support as well as culturally responsive care may improve the care of Latinx patients with ESKD receiving in-center scheduled hemodialysis.

BACKGROUND:The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has disproportionately affected socially disadvantaged populations. Whether disparities in COVID-19 incidence related to race/ethnicity and socioeconomic factors exist in the hemodialysis population is unknown. METHODS:Our study involved patients receiving in-center hemodialysis in New York City. We used a validated index of neighborhood social vulnerability, the Social Vulnerability Index (SVI), which comprises 15 census tract-level indicators organized into four themes: socioeconomic status, household composition and disability, minority status and language, and housing type and transportation. We examined the association of race/ethnicity and the SVI with symptomatic COVID-19 between March 1, 2020 and August 3, 2020. COVID-19 cases were ascertained using PCR testing. We performed multivariable logistic regression to adjust for demographics, individual-level social factors, dialysis-related medical history, and dialysis facility factors. RESULTS:Of the 1378 patients on hemodialysis in the study, 247 (17.9%) developed symptomatic COVID-19. In adjusted analyses, non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic patients had significantly increased odds of COVID-19 compared with non-Hispanic White patients. Census tract-level overall SVI, modeled continuously or in quintiles, was not associated with COVID-19 in unadjusted or adjusted analyses. Among non-Hispanic White patients, the socioeconomic status SVI theme, the minority status and language SVI theme, and housing crowding were significantly associated with COVID-19 in unadjusted analyses. CONCLUSIONS:Among patients on hemodialysis in New York City, there were substantial racial/ethnic disparities in COVID-19 incidence not explained by neighborhood-level social vulnerability. Neighborhood-level socioeconomic status, minority status and language, and housing crowding were positively associated with acquiring COVID-19 among non-Hispanic Whites. Our findings suggest that socially vulnerable patients on dialysis face disparate COVID-19-related exposures, requiring targeted risk-mitigation strategies.

Insomnia is common among patients on maintenance haemodialysis and may be exacerbated by the challenges of the COVID pandemic. However, data on the efficacy of insomnia interventions in this population are limited. Efforts are needed to address this important problem and increase access to insomnia interventions for patients on haemodialysis.

Opioid analgesics carry risk for serious health-related harms in patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) and end-stage kidney disease. In the general population with chronic noncancer pain, there is some evidence that opioid reduction or discontinuation is associated with improved pain outcomes; however, tapering opioids abruptly or without providing supportive interventions can lead to physical and psychological harms and relapse of opioid use. There is emerging evidence that nonpharmacologic treatments such as psychosocial interventions, acupuncture, and interdisciplinary pain management programs are effective approaches to support opioid dose reduction in patients experiencing persistent pain, but research in this area still is relatively new. This review describes the current evidence for nonpharmacologic interventions to support opioid reduction in non-CKD patients with pain and discusses the application of the available evidence to patients with advanced CKD who are prescribed opioids to manage pain.

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.

BACKGROUND:Patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) treated with hemodialysis (HD) experience many distressing symptoms. One frequently reported symptom is insomnia. There are unique issues about HD treatments and schedules that disrupt regular sleep/wake routines and possibly contribute to the high severity of insomnia. Despite evidence for broad-ranging health effects of insomnia, very few clinical trials have tested the efficacy of treatments for HD patients. Cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) is a recommended first-line therapy but largely inaccessible to HD patients in the United States, partly because they commit considerable amounts of time to thrice-weekly dialysis treatments. Another important reason could be the logistical and reimbursement challenges associated with providing behavioral health care at the dialysis center. CBT-I delivered by telehealth can overcome barriers to access, but its efficacy has never been rigorously tested for these patients. Pharmacotherapy is the most widely used treatment for insomnia; however, some drugs presently used are unsafe as they are associated with a higher risk for death for HD patients (benzodiazepines and zolpidem-like drugs). The efficacy and safety of other medications (trazodone) for the treatment of insomnia has never been tested for patients treated with HD. METHODS:This trial tests the short- and long-term comparative effectiveness of 6-week treatment with telehealth CBT-I, trazodone, or medication placebo. This will be accomplished with a randomized controlled trial (RCT) in which 126 participants treated with HD in community-based dialysis facilities with chronic insomnia will be assigned 1:1:1 to telehealth CBT-I, trazodone, or medication placebo, respectively; short-term effectiveness of each treatment arm will be determined at the end of 6-weeks of treatment and long-term effectiveness at 25-weeks. The primary and secondary patient-reported outcomes will be assessed with computer-based telephone interviewing by research scientists blinded to treatment assignment; additional secondary outcomes will be assessed by participant interview and actigraphy. DISCUSSION:This clinical RCT will provide the first evidence for the comparative effectiveness of two distinct approaches for treating chronic insomnia and other patient-reported outcomes for patients receiving maintenance HD. TRIAL REGISTRATION:NCT03534284 May 23, 2018. SLEEP-HD Protocol Version: 1.3.4 (7/22/2020).

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.