Dataset Information

Higher dose weekly fluoxetine in hemodialysis patients: A case series report.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

The antidepressant medication fluoxetine at 90 mg dosed weekly is as effective and safe as standard formulation fluoxetine 20 mg dosed daily in patients with major depressive disorder. Weekly fluoxetine has not been well studied in hemodialysis patients, and doses beyond 90 mg/week have not been described in this population. This case series, derived from a larger study on depression in hemodialysis patients, describes the use of weekly fluoxetine at dosages beyond 90 mg/week.

Method

Hemodialysis patients with depressive symptom severity scored ≥10 on the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire and major depressive disorder confirmed with Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview were initially prescribed daily fluoxetine for two weeks and then transitioned to weekly fluoxetine. Dosage titration was made at the discretion of the prescribing clinician. Fluoxetine was continued for a total of 12 weeks.

Results

Four women, aged 24 to 65 years, on hemodialysis for 1 to 18 years, were started on weekly fluoxetine that was increased over several weeks up to 180 mg. Side effects included restlessness, dry mouth, sedation, and lightheadedness. Two patients ultimately had their weekly fluoxetine decreased back to 90 mg. However, all four continued weekly fluoxetine as part of poststudy aftercare and no longer met diagnostic criteria for major depressive disorder, current episode.

Conclusions

Weekly fluoxetine at doses of 180 mg may be a reasonable treatment consideration for hemodialysis patients who have partial or insufficient antidepressant response. Side effects may limit tolerance of the 180 mg dose in some individuals. Future research should investigate longer term health outcomes of weekly fluoxetine in this population.

SUBMITTER: Kauffman KM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7529646 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: Disturbances in bodily wellbeing represent a key source of psychosocial suffering and impairment related to cancer. Therefore, interventions to improve bodily wellbeing in post-treatment cancer patients are of paramount importance. Notably, body psychotherapy (BPT) has been shown to improve bodily wellbeing in subjects suffering from a variety of mental disorders. However, how post-treatment cancer patients perceive and subjectively react to group BPT aiming at improving bodily disturbances has, to the best of our knowledge, not yet been described. Methods: We report on six patients undergoing outpatient group BPT that followed oncological treatment for malignant neoplasms. The BPT consisted of six sessions based on a scientific embodiment approach, integrating body-oriented techniques to improve patients' awareness, perception, acceptance, and expression regarding their body. Results: The BPT was well accepted by all patients. Despite having undergone different types of oncological treatment for different cancer types and locations, all subjects reported having appreciated BPT and improved how they perceived their bodies. However, individual descriptions of improvements showed substantial heterogeneity across subjects. Notably, most patients indicated that sensations, perceptions, and other mental activities related to their own body intensified when proceeding through the group BPT sessions. Conclusion: The findings from this case series encourage and inform future studies examining whether group BPT is efficacious in post-treatment cancer patients and investigating the related mechanisms of action. The observed heterogeneity in individual descriptions of perceived treatment effects point to the need for selecting comprehensive indicators of changes in disturbances of bodily wellbeing as the primary patient-reported outcome in future clinical trials. While increases in mental activities related to their own body are commonly interpreted as important mechanisms of therapeutic action in BPT, follow-up assessments are needed to evaluate intended and unintended consequences of these changes in cancer patients.

Project description:Residual kidney function (RKF) contributes to improved survival in hemodialysis (HD) patients. However, it is not clear whether RKF allows a comparable survival rate in patients undergoing twice-weekly HD compared with thrice-weekly HD.We enrolled 685 patients from a prospective multicenter observational cohort. RKF and HD adequacy was monitored regularly over 3-year follow-up. Patients with RKF were divided into groups undergoing twice-weekly HD (n = 113) or thrice-weekly HD (n = 137). Patients without RKF undergoing thrice-weekly HD (n = 435) were included as controls. Fluid balance and dialysis-associated characteristics were followed and clinical outcomes evaluated using all-cause mortality and cardiovascular events (CVE).In patients with RKF, baseline and follow-up RKF were significantly higher in patients undergoing twice-weekly HD than in those undergoing thrice-weekly HD. Total Kt/V urea (dialysis plus residual renal) in patients with RKF undergoing twice-weekly HD was greater than or equal to those in patients with or without RKF undergoing thrice-weekly HD. Compared with patients with RKF undergoing thrice-weekly HD, patients with RKF undergoing twice-weekly HD had no fluid excess, but their normalized protein catabolic rate became lower since 24-month follow up. In multivariable analyses, patients with RKF undergoing twice-weekly HD had a noninferior risk of mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.83; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.34-2.01, P = 0.68) and of CVE (HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.28-1.29, P = 0.19) compared with patients without RKF undergoing thrice-weekly HD. However, this group showed an independent association with a greater risk of mortality compared with patients with RKF undergoing thrice-weekly HD (HR, 4.20; 95% CI, 1.02-17.32, P = 0.04).In conclusion, patients with RKF undergoing twice-weekly HD had an increased risk of mortality compared with those undergoing thrice-weekly HD. Decisions about twice-weekly HD should consider not only RKF, but also other risk factors such as normalized protein catabolic rate.