Faculty Bibliography

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.

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.

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: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.

Barriers for renal transplant patients to immunosuppressant medication adherence are poorly understood, despite the high rate and toll of non-adherence. We sought to assess factors that contribute to barriers to immunosuppressive medication adherence in an ethnically diverse sample of 312 renal transplant patients recruited from three transplant centers across New York City. Transplant patients who were at least 6 months post-transplant completed questionnaires while waiting for their medical appointment. Ethnic differences were observed on barriers to immunosuppressant adherence. Black and Hispanic participants reported significantly more barriers to adherence compared to Caucasian participants. Differences in perception about the potential harm and necessity of immunosuppressant medications also were present. Using hierarchical multiple regression, age and income were significant predictors of reported barriers to adherence, even while controlling for ethnicity. The most robust predictor of reported barriers was the perception of the medication cost-benefit differential, i.e., the balance between concerns about immunosuppressant medications and their perceived helpfulness (B = - 0.5, p < .001), indicating that varying beliefs about the medication's necessity and utility rather than ethnicity explain the differences in barriers to medication adherence. Future interventions targeting non-adherence should aim to reduce the barriers to adherence by addressing perceived risks and benefits of taking immunosuppressant medication.

Fatigue is one of the most highly prioritized outcomes for patients and clinicians, but remains infrequently and inconsistently reported across trials in hemodialysis. We convened an international Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology-Hemodialysis (SONG-HD) consensus workshop with stakeholders to discuss the development and implementation of a core outcome measure for fatigue. 15 patients/caregivers and 42 health professionals (clinicians, researchers, policy makers, and industry representatives) from 9 countries participated in breakout discussions. Transcripts were analyzed thematically. 4 themes for a core outcome measure emerged. Drawing attention to a distinct and all-encompassing symptom was explicitly recognizing fatigue as a multifaceted symptom unique to hemodialysis. Emphasizing the pervasive impact of fatigue on life participation justified the focus on how fatigue severely impaired the patient's ability to do usual activities. Ensuring relevance and accuracy in measuring fatigue would facilitate shared decision making about treatment. Minimizing burden of administration meant avoiding the cognitive burden, additional time, and resources required to use the measure. A core outcome measure that is simple, is short, and includes a focus on the severity of the impact of fatigue on life participation may facilitate consistent and meaningful measurement of fatigue in all trials to inform decision making and care of patients receiving hemodialysis.