Attitudes towards medication non-adherence in elderly kidney transplant patients: A Q methodology study

Background. Non-adherence to the post-transplant regime is a common problem in kidney transplant patients and may lead to rejection or even graft failure. This study investigated attitudes towards the post-transplant regime of immunosuppressive medication among the ever growing population of elderly kidney recipients.Methods. Q methodology was used to explore attitude profiles. Participants (> 65 years) were asked to rank-order opinion statements on issues associated with (non-)adherence. The rankings were subject to by-person factor analysis, and the resulting factors were interpreted and described as attitudes.Results. Twenty-six elderly renal transplant recipients participated in the study. All passed the Mini-Mental

Using Electronic Health Records to Characterize Prescription Patterns: Focus on Antidepressants in Nonpsychiatric Outpatient Settings

Objective To characterize nonpsychiatric prescription patterns of antidepressants according to drug labels and evidence assessments (on-label, evidence-based, and off-label) using structured outpatient electronic health record (EHR) data. Methods A retrospective analysis was conducted using deidentified EHR data from an outpatient practice at a New York City-based academic medical center. Structured “medication–diagnosis” pairs for antidepressants from 35 325 patients between January 2010 and December 2015 were compared to the latest drug product labels and evidence assessments. Results Of 140 929 antidepressant prescriptions prescribed by primary care providers (PCPs) and nonpsychiatry specialists, 69% were characterized as “on-label/evidence-based uses.” Depression diagnoses were associated with 67 233 (48%) prescriptions in this study, while pain diagnoses were slightly less common (35%). Manual chart review of “off-label use” prescriptions revealed that on-label/evidence-based diagnoses of depression (39%), anxiety (25%), insomnia (13%), mood disorders (7%), and neuropathic pain (5%) were frequently cited as prescription indication despite lacking ICD-9/10 documentation. Conclusions The results indicate that antidepressants may be prescribed for off-label uses, by PCPs and nonpsychiatry specialists, less frequently than believed. This study also points to the fact that there are a number of off-label uses that are efficacious and widely accepted by expert clinical opinion but have not been included in drug compendia. Despite the fact that diagnosis codes in the outpatient setting are notoriously inaccurate, our approach demonstrates that the correct codes are often documented in a patient’s recent diagnosis history. Examining both structured and unstructured data will help to further validate findings. Routinely collected clinical data in EHRs can serve as an important resource for future studies in investigating prescribing behaviors in outpatient clinics

D-cycloserine augmentation of exposure-based cognitive behavior therapy for anxiety, obsessive-compulsive, and posttraumatic stress disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data

Importance: Whether and under which conditions D-cycloserine (DCS) augments the effects of exposure-based cognitive behavior therapy for anxiety, obsessive-compulsive, and posttraumatic stress disorders is unclear. Objective: To clarify whether DCS is superior to placebo in augmenting the effects of cognitive behavior therapy for anxiety, obsessive-compulsive, and posttraumatic stress disorders and to evaluate whether antidepressants interact with DCS and the effect of potential moderating variables. Data Sources: PubMed, EMBASE, and PsycINFO were searched from inception to February 10, 2016. Reference lists of previous reviews and meta-analyses and reports of randomized clinical trials were also checked. Study Selection: Studies were eligible for inclusion if they were (1) double-blind randomized clinical trials of DCS as an augmentation strategy for exposure-based cognitive behavior therapy and (2) conducted in humans diagnosed as having specific phobia, social anxiety disorder, panic disorder with or without agoraphobia, obsessive-compulsive disorder, or posttraumatic stress disorder. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Raw data were obtained from the authors and quality controlled. Data were ranked to ensure a consistent metric across studies (score range, 0-100). We used a 3-level multilevel model nesting repeated measures of outcomes within participants, who were nested within studies. Results: Individual participant data were obtained for 21 of 22 eligible trials, representing 1047 of 1073 eligible participants. When controlling for antidepressant use, participants receiving DCS showed greater improvement from pretreatment to posttreatment (mean difference, -3.62; 95% CI, -0.81 to -6.43; P = .01; d = -0.25) but not from pretreatment to midtreatment (mean difference, -1.66; 95% CI, -4.92 to 1.60; P = .32; d = -0.14) or from pretreatment to follow-up (mean difference, -2.98, 95% CI, -5.99 to 0.03; P = .05; d = -0.19). Additional analyses showed that participants assigned to DCS were associated with lower symptom severity than those assigned to placebo at posttreatment and at follow-up. Antidepressants did not moderate the effects of DCS. None of the prespecified patient-level or study-level moderators was associated with outcomes. Conclusions and Relevance: D-cycloserine is associated with a small augmentation effect on exposure-based therapy. This effect is not moderated by the concurrent use of antidepressants. Further research is needed to identify patient and/or therapy characteristics associated with DCS response.2018-05-0

A study of sertraline in dialysis (ASSertID) : a protocol for a pilot randomised controlled trial of drug treatment for depression in patients undergoing haemodialysis

© 2015 Friedli et al. Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise statedBACKGROUND: The prevalence of depression in people receiving haemodialysis is high with estimates varying between 20 and 40 %. There is little research on the effectiveness of antidepressants in dialysis patients with the few clinical trials suffering significant methodological issues. We plan to carry out a study to evaluate the feasibility of conducting a randomised controlled trial in patients on haemodialysis who have diagnosed Major Depressive Disorder.METHODS/DESIGN: The study has two phases, a screening phase and the randomised controlled trial. Patients will be screened initially with the Beck Depression Inventory to estimate the number of patients who score 16 or above. These patients will be invited to an interview with a psychiatrist who will invite those with a diagnosis of Major Depressive Disorder to take part in the trial. Consenting patients will be randomised to either Sertraline or placebo. Patients will be followed-up for 6 months. Demographic and clinical data will be collected at screening interview, baseline interview and 2 weeks, and every month (up to 6 months) after baseline. The primary outcome is to evaluate the feasibility of conducting a randomised, double blind, placebo pilot trial in haemodialysis patients with depression. Secondary outcomes include estimation of the variability in the outcome measures for the treatment and placebo arms, which will allow for a future adequately powered definitive trial. Analysis will primarily be descriptive, including the number of patients eligible for the trial, drug exposure of Sertraline in haemodialysis patients and the patient experience of participating in this trial.DISCUSSION: There is an urgent need for this research in the dialysis population because of the dearth of good quality and adequately powered studies. Research with renal patients is particularly difficult as they often have complex medical needs. This research will therefore not only assess the outcome of anti-depressants in haemodialysis patients with depression but also the process of running a randomised controlled trial in this population. Hence, the outputs of this feasibility study will be used to inform the design and methodology of a definitive study, adequately powered to determine the efficacy of anti-depressants in patient on haemodialysis with depression.TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry ISRCTN06146268 and EudraCT reference: 2012-000547-27.Peer reviewedFinal Published versio

Protocol of a Randomized Controlled Trial of Culturally Sensitive Interventions to Improve African Americans' and Non-African Americans' Early, Shared, and Informed Consideration of Live Kidney Transplantation: The talking about Live Kidney Donation (TALK) study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Live kidney transplantation (LKT) is underutilized, particularly among ethnic/racial minorities. The effectiveness of culturally sensitive educational and behavioral interventions to encourage patients' early, shared (with family and health care providers) and informed consideration of LKT and ameliorate disparities in consideration of LKT is unknown.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>We report the protocol of the Talking About Live Kidney Donation (TALK) Study, a two-phase study utilizing qualitative and quantitative research methods to design and test culturally sensitive interventions to improve patients' shared and informed consideration of LKT. Study Phase 1 involved the evidence-based development of culturally sensitive written and audiovisual educational materials as well as a social worker intervention to encourage patients' engagement in shared and informed consideration of LKT. In Study Phase 2, we are currently conducting a randomized controlled trial in which participants with progressing chronic kidney disease receive: 1) usual care by their nephrologists, 2) usual care plus the educational materials, or 3) usual care plus the educational materials and the social worker intervention. The primary outcome of the randomized controlled trial will include patients' self-reported rates of consideration of LKT (including family discussions of LKT, patient-physician discussions of LKT, and identification of an LKT donor). We will also assess differences in rates of consideration of LKT among African Americans and non-African Americans.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>The TALK Study rigorously developed and is currently testing the effectiveness of culturally sensitive interventions to improve patients' and families' consideration of LKT. Results from TALK will provide needed evidence on ways to enhance consideration of this optimal treatment for patients with end stage renal disease.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>ClinicalTrials.gov number, <a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00932334">NCT00932334</a></p

Depression prevalence using the HADS-D compared to SCID major depression classification:An individual participant data meta-analysis

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.This study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR, KRS-144045 & PCG 155468). Ms. Neupane was supported by a 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. Dr. Patten was supported by a Senior Health Scholar award from Alberta Innovates, Health Solutions. The primary study by Scott et al. was supported by the Cumming School of Medicine and Alberta Health Services through the Calgary Health Trust, and funding from the Hotchkiss Brain Institute. The primary study by Amoozegar et al. was supported by the Alberta Health Services, the University of Calgary Faculty of Medicine, and the Hotchkiss Brain Institute. The primary study by Cheung et al. was supported by the Waikato Clinical School, University of Auckland, the Waikato Medical Research Foundation and the Waikato Respiratory Research Fund. The primary study by Cukor et al. was supported in part by a Promoting Psychological Research and Training on Health-Disparities Issues at Ethnic Minority Serving Institutions Grants (ProDIGs) awarded to Dr. Cukor from the American Psychological Association. The primary study by De Souza et al. was supported by Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health Foundation Trust. The primary study by Honarmand et al. was supported by a grant from the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada. The primary study by Fischer et al. was supported as part of the RECODEHF study by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (01GY1150). The primary study by Gagnon et al. was supported by the Drummond Foundation and the Department of Psychiatry, University Health Network. The primary study by Akechi et al. was supported in part by a Grant-in-Aid for Cancer Research (11−2) from the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare and a Grant-in-Aid for Young Scientists (B) from the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. The primary study by Kugaya et al. was supported in part by a Grant-in-Aid for Cancer Research (9–31) and the Second-Term Comprehensive 10-year Strategy for Cancer Control from the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. The primary study Ryan et al. was supported by the Irish Cancer Society (Grant CRP08GAL). The primary study by Keller et al. was supported by the Medical Faculty of the University of Heidelberg (grant no. 175/2000). The primary study by Love et al. (2004) was supported by the Kathleen Cuningham Foundation (National Breast Cancer Foundation), the Cancer Council of Victoria and the National Health and Medical Research Council. The primary study by Love et al. (2002) was supported by a grant from the Bethlehem Griffiths Research Foundation. The primary study by Löwe et al. was supported by the medical faculty of the University of Heidelberg, Germany (Project 121/2000). The primary study by Navines et al. was supported in part by the Spanish grants from the Fondo de Investigación en Salud, Instituto de Salud Carlos III (EO PI08/90869 and PSIGEN-VHC Study: FIS-E08/00268) and the support of FEDER (one way to make Europe). The primary study by O'Rourke et al. was supported by the Scottish Home and Health Department, Stroke Association, and Medical Research Council. The primary study by Sanchez-Gistau et al. was supported by a grant from the Ministry of Health of Spain (PI040418) and in part by Catalonia Government, DURSI 2009SGR1119. The primary study by Gould et al. was supported by the Transport Accident Commission Grant. The primary study by Rooney et al. was supported by the NHS Lothian Neuro-Oncology Endowment Fund. The primary study by Schwarzbold et al. was supported by PRONEX Program (NENASC Project) and PPSUS Program of Fundaçao de Amparo a esquisa e Inovacao do Estado de Santa Catarina (FAPESC) and the National Science and Technology Institute for Translational Medicine (INCT-TM). The primary study by Simard et al. was supported by IDEA grants from the Canadian Prostate Cancer Research Initiative and the Canadian Breast Cancer Research Alliance, as well as a studentship from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. The primary study by Singer et al. (2009) was supported by a grant from the German Federal Ministry for Education and Research (no. 01ZZ0106). The primary study by Singer et al. (2008) was supported by grants from the German Federal Ministry for Education and Research (# 7DZAIQTX) and of the University of Leipzig (# formel. 1–57). The primary study by Meyer et al. was supported by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF). The primary study by Stone et al. was supported by the Medical Research Council, UK and Chest Heart and Stroke, Scotland. The primary study by Turner et al. was supported by a bequest from Jennie Thomas through Hunter Medical Research Institute. The primary study by Walterfang et al. was supported by Melbourne Health. Drs. Benedetti and Thombs were supported by FRQS researcher salary awards. No other authors reported funding for primary studies or for their work on this study. 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

Social and occupational factors associated with psychological distress and disorder among disaster responders: a systematic review

BACKGROUND: When disasters occur, there are many different occupational groups involved in rescue, recovery and support efforts. This study aimed to conduct a systematic literature review to identify social and occupational factors affecting the psychological impact of disasters on responders. METHODS: Four electronic literature databases (MEDLINE®, Embase, PsycINFO® and Web of Science) were searched and hand searches of reference lists were carried out. Papers were screened against specific inclusion criteria (e.g. published in peer-reviewed journal in English; included a quantitative measure of wellbeing; participants were disaster responders). Data was extracted from relevant papers and thematic analysis was used to develop a list of key factors affecting the wellbeing of disaster responders. RESULTS: Eighteen thousand five papers were found and 111 included in the review. The psychological impact of disasters on responders appeared associated with pre-disaster factors (occupational factors; specialised training and preparedness; life events and health), during-disaster factors (exposure; duration on site and arrival time; emotional involvement; peri-traumatic distress/dissociation; role-related stressors; perceptions of safety, threat and risk; harm to self or close others; social support; professional support) and post-disaster factors (professional support; impact on life; life events; media; coping strategies). CONCLUSIONS: There are steps that can be taken at all stages of a disaster (before, during and after) which may minimise risks to responders and enhance resilience. Preparedness (for the demands of the role and the potential psychological impact) and support (particularly from the organisation) are essential. The findings of this review could potentially be used to develop training workshops for professionals involved in disaster response. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s40359-016-0120-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users