To the Editor: We appreciate the thoughtful review by Drs. Wilson and Jacobson and the opportunity to respond to their specific comments regarding our article.1 Their concern about data presented in Table 3 has 2 components: format and narrative interpretation. We presented column percents as a matter of convention and understand that some readers may interpret 2 by 2 comparisons differently. Regarding the interpretation of the data, we agree with Drs. Wilson and Jacobson that the Table 3 narrative was incorrect; however, the odds ratios (ORs) presented still pertain. The statements in the results should read: “The proportion of depressed patients who received ADT was lower in the ART-adherent group 65% vs. 77 %, (OR = 0.55 [0.34-0.88]).” Merely prescribing antidepressant treatment (ADT) medication to depressed HIV-infected individuals did not improve antiretroviral therapy (ART) adherence. To assess further for a potential modifying factor, data were stratified by ADT adherence. Again, using Table 3 column percents, the corrected narrative statement should read: “The proportion of depressed patients who received and adhered to ADT was higher in the ART-adherent group 69% vs. 48% (OR = 2.45 [1.39-4.29]).” As stated in the Methods section, the Table 4 ART adherence comparison required 6-month (pre/post) interval measurements around ADT initiation. Whereas the total depressed HIV-infected cohort included 506 cases with 6 months of ART follow-up (data in Table 2), indeed, only 376 of these individuals (Table 3) received ADT. Of these, only 263 had 6 months of pre-ADT observations from the administrative data (Table 4). When comparing those included in Table 4 versus those excluded, the included group was slightly older (40.9 vs. 39.3 years; P < 0.01) and had more medical visits (>16) per year (80% vs. 62%; P < 0.001) and more psychiatric visits (>2) per year (63% vs. 29%; P < 0.001). As mentioned by Drs. Wilson and Jacobson, ART adherence before and after receiving ADT (the first 2 rows of Table 4) does not seem to be related to ADT adherence. Before receiving ADT, all patients generally have the same ART adherence, and 6 months after starting ADT, regardless of ADT adherence status, there was significant improvement. We agree that passage of time seemed to be of significance. The simple pairwise analytic approach failed to demonstrate an ADT adherence effect; however, this analytic method was limited by significant potential confounding. To control for other factors, a logistic regression model was developed, and the results are presented in Table 5. It is here where we observe that the ADT-adherent individual was less likely (OR = 0.4 [0.2-0.7]) to be nonadherent to ART. The discussion point referred to by Drs. Wilson and Jacobson is based on the logistic modeling results of Table 5. This analysis was first limited by the number of individuals who had received ADT (N = 378, from Table 3), and, as shown in Table 2, some were missing interview data. The total number of individuals in the logistic regression analysis was 297. There are indeed no longitudinal analyses or randomized controlled trials that directly address the relation between depression treatment and ART adherence. This study took advantage of real-world administrative data from a safety-net institution to evaluate various methods of approaching this research gap. Given the absence of rigorous trials, our observational findings controlled for known confounders (eg, alcohol use) continue to point to a potential effect modifier for ART adherence, appropriate identification, ADT treatment, and ADT adherence of and by depressed patients. Arthur J. Davidson, MD, MSPH Lourdes Yun, MD, MSPH Moises Maravi, MS