Context Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) experience increased rates of hospitalization and death. Depressive disorders are associated with morbidity and mortality. Whether depression contributes to poor outcomes in patients with CKD not receiving dialysis is unknown. Objective To determine whether the presence of a current major depressive episode (MDE) is associated with poorer outcomes in patients with CKD. Design, Setting, and Patients Prospective cohort study of 267 consecutively recruited outpatients with CKD (stages 2–5 and who were not receiving dialysis) at a VA medical center between May 2005 and November 2006 and followed up for 1 year. An MDE was diagnosed by blinded personnel using the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fourth Edition) criteria. Main Outcome Measures The primary outcome was event-free survival defined as the composite of death, dialysis initiation, or hospitalization. Secondary outcomes included each of these events assessed separately. Results Among 267 patients, 56 had a current MDE (21%) and 211 did not (79%). There were 127 composite events, 116 hospitalizations, 38 dialysis initiations, and 18 deaths. Events occurred more often in patients with an MDE compared with those without an MDE (61% vs 44%, respectively, P=.03). Four patients with missing dates of hospitalization were excluded from survival analyses. The mean (SD) time to the composite event was 206.5 (19.8) days (95% CI, 167.7–245.3 days) for those with an MDE compared with 273.3 (8.5) days (95% CI, 256.6–290.0 days) for those without an MDE (P=.003). The adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for the composite event for patients with an MDE was 1.86 (95% CI, 1.23–2.84). An MDE at baseline independently predicted progression to dialysis (HR, 3.51; 95% CI, 1.77–6.97) and hospitalization (HR, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.23–2.95). Conclusion The presence of an MDE was associated with an increased risk of poor outcomes in CKD patients who were not receiving dialysis, independent of comorbidities and kidney disease severity.

Background Depression is prevalent in long-term dialysis patients and is associated with death and hospitalization. Whether depression is present through all chronic kidney disease (CKD) stages or appears after dialysis therapy initiation is not clear. We determined the prevalence of a major depressive episode and other psychiatric illnesses by using a structured gold-standard clinical interview and demographic and clinical variables associated with major depressive episode in patients with CKD. Study Design Observational cross-sectional study using a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fourth Edition)-based structured interview administered by trained persons to 272 consecutive participants. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine demographic and clinical variables associated with major depressive episode. Setting & Participants Patients with stages 2 to 5 CKD not treated by using dialysis were consecutively approached and enrolled from a Veterans Affairs CKD clinic. Predictors Demographic and clinical variables. Outcome Major depressive episode diagnosed by using a structured Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fourth Edition)-based interview, the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview. Results The cohort had a mean age of 64.5 ± 12.0 years. Thirty-eight percent were African American, and 55% had diabetes mellitus. Percentages of patients with stages 2, 3, 4, and 5 CKD were 6%, 38%, 41%, and 14%, respectively. Mean hemoglobin level was 12.5 ± 2.0 g/dL. The prevalence of a major depressive episode was 21% and did not vary significantly among different CKD stages. Variables associated with a major depressive episode were diabetes mellitus, comorbid psychiatric illness, and history of drug or alcohol abuse. Limitations Single-center study composed of primarily male veterans. Conclusions One in 5 patients with CKD had a major depressive episode. Patients with CKD should be screened routinely for depression given this high prevalence and the independent association of depression with poor outcomes in patients with end-stage renal disease receiving maintenance dialysis.

No abstract

Objective Currently, no valid measures inform treatment selection for depressed patients. Whether C-reactive protein (CRP) in particular and two other acute phase reactants (inflammatory markers) could differentiate between patients responding to either of two treatments with different mechanisms of action was assessed. Method Subjects included Combining Medications to Enhance Depression Outcomes (CO-MED) trial participants randomly assigned to either escitalopram plus placebo (SSRI monotherapy, n=51) or bupropion plus escitalopram combination (bupropion-SSRI combination, n=55) with baseline plasma samples. CRP, serum amyloid P component, and alpha-2-macroglobulin were measured using the Bioplex Pro™ human acute-phase 4-plex panel. We conducted mixed model analyses of depressive symptom (Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology Self-Report) and side-effect burden (Frequency, Intensity, and Burden of Side-Effects Rating Scale) obtained weekly or every other week over the 12-week acute-phase of CO-MED trial to evaluate the relationship between these outcomes and baseline CRP and other acute-phase reactants. Results The treatment arms did not differ in depressive symptom or side effect outcomes. Most participants (69.8%, 74/106) had baseline CRP levels greater than 1 mg/L (indicative of systemic inflammatory activity). Higher baseline CRP levels were associated lower depression severity (correlation coefficient=−0.63) with bupropion-SSRI combination but not with SSRI monotherapy (correlation coefficient=0.40). The overall remission rate was 41.5%. The estimated remission rate with CRP threshold based assignment (SSRI monotherapy for <1 mg/L and Bupropion-SSRI for ≥1 mg/L) was 53.1%, with a number needed to treat of 8.6. Side effect burden was unrelated to any baseline inflammatory marker. Conclusions Baseline CRP levels relate differentially to antidepressant treatment outcomes in persons with major depressive disorder.

Background Despite its widespread use, the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA)-Physical Status Classification System has been shown to result in inconsistent assignments among anesthesiologists. The ASA-Physical Status Classification System is also used by nonanesthesia-trained clinicians and others. In 2014, the ASA developed and approved examples to assist clinicians in determining the correct ASA-Physical Status Classification System assignment. The effect of these examples by anesthesia-trained and nonanesthesia-trained clinicians on appropriate ASA-Physical Status Classification System assignment in hypothetical cases was examined. Methods Anesthesia-trained and nonanesthesia-trained clinicians were recruited via email to participate in a web-based questionnaire study. The questionnaire consisted of 10 hypothetical cases, for which respondents were first asked to assign ASA-Physical Status using only the ASA-Physical Status Classification System definitions and a second time using the newly ASA-approved examples. Results With ASA-approved examples, both anesthesia-trained and nonanesthesia-trained clinicians improved in mean number of correct answers (out of possible 10) compared to ASA-Physical Status Classification System definitions alone (P &lt; 0.001 for all). However, with examples, nonanesthesia-trained clinicians improved more compared to anesthesia-trained clinicians. With definitions only, anesthesia-trained clinicians (5.8 ± 1.6) scored higher than nonanesthesia-trained clinicians (5.4 ± 1.7; P = 0.041). With examples, anesthesia-trained (7.7 ± 1.8) and nonanesthesia-trained (8.0 ± 1.7) groups were not significantly different (P = 0.100). Conclusions The addition of examples to the definitions of the ASA-Physical Status Classification System increases the correct assignment of patients by anesthesia-trained and nonanesthesia-trained clinicians.