Debate article: Antipsychotic medications are clinically useful for the treatment of delirium

Drugs, delirium, and ethics at the end of life

For older persons with delirium at the end of life, treatment involves complex trade-offs and highly value-sensitive decisions. The principles of beneficence, nonmaleficence, respect for autonomy, and justice establish important parameters but lack the structure necessary to guide clinicians in the optimal management of these patients. We propose a set of ethical rules to guide therapeutics-the canons of therapy-as a toolset to help clinicians deliberate about the competing concerns involved in the management of older patients with delirium at the end of life. These canons are standards of judgment that reflect how many experienced clinicians already intuitively practice, but which are helpful to articulate and apply as basic building blocks for a relatively neglected but emerging ethics of therapy. The canons of therapy most pertinent to the care of patients with delirium at the end of life are as follows: (1) restoration, which counsels that the goal of all treatment is to restore the patient, as much as possible, to homeostatic equilibrium; (2) means-end proportionality, which holds that every treatment should be well-fitted to the intended goal or end; (3) discretion, which counsels that an awareness of the limits of medical knowledge and practice should guide all treatment decisions; and (4) parsimony, which maintains that only as much therapeutic force as is necessary should be used to achieve the therapeutic goal. Carefully weighed and applied, these canons of therapy may provide the ethical structure needed to help clinicians optimally navigate complex cases.

Natural language processing diagnosed behavioural disturbance phenotypes in the intensive care unit: characteristics, prevalence, trajectory, treatment, and outcomes

BACKGROUND

Natural language processing (NLP) may help evaluate the characteristics, prevalence, trajectory, treatment, and outcomes of behavioural disturbance phenotypes in critically ill patients.

METHODS

We obtained electronic clinical notes, demographic information, outcomes, and treatment data from three medical-surgical ICUs. Using NLP, we screened for behavioural disturbance phenotypes based on words suggestive of an agitated state, a non-agitated state, or a combination of both.

RESULTS

We studied 2931 patients. Of these, 225 (7.7%) were NLP-Dx-BD positive for the agitated phenotype, 544 (18.6%) for the non-agitated phenotype and 667 (22.7%) for the combined phenotype. Patients with these phenotypes carried multiple clinical baseline differences. On time-dependent multivariable analysis to compensate for immortal time bias and after adjustment for key outcome predictors, agitated phenotype patients were more likely to receive antipsychotic medications (odds ratio [OR] 1.84, 1.35-2.51, p < 0.001) compared to non-agitated phenotype patients but not compared to combined phenotype patients (OR 1.27, 0.86-1.89, p = 0.229). Moreover, agitated phenotype patients were more likely to die than other phenotypes patients (OR 1.57, 1.10-2.25, p = 0.012 vs non-agitated phenotype; OR 4.61, 2.14-9.90, p < 0.001 vs. combined phenotype). This association was strongest in patients receiving mechanical ventilation when compared with the combined phenotype (OR 7.03, 2.07-23.79, p = 0.002). A similar increased risk was also seen for patients with the non-agitated phenotype compared with the combined phenotype (OR 6.10, 1.80-20.64, p = 0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

NLP-Dx-BD screening enabled identification of three behavioural disturbance phenotypes with different characteristics, prevalence, trajectory, treatment, and outcome. Such phenotype identification appears relevant to prognostication and trial design.

Delusions and Hallucinations Are Associated With Greater Severity of Delirium

BACKGROUND

The 3 core domains of delirium (cognitive, higher level thinking, circadian) do not include the less common noncore psychotic symptoms. However, psychosis might inform about perturbations of neural circuitry, outcomes, or suggest tailored clinical management.

OBJECTIVE

We assessed for the first time the relationships between psychosis and other characteristics of delirium in patients without confounders for delirium phenotype, such as dementia or antipsychotics treatment.

METHODS

Cross-sectional analysis of 366 adults with delirium per the Delirium Rating Scale Revised-98, whose items distinguish hallucinations and delusions from other types of misperceptions and abnormal thought content, assessed during the preceding 24 hours to capture symptom severity fluctuation. The relationship of psychosis with other delirium characteristics was assessed using bivariate comparisons and analysis of variance as appropriate for groups with no psychosis and any psychosis (hallucinations and/or delusions), and subgroups with only hallucinations, only delusions, or both. A discriminant logistic model assessed variables associated with presence of any psychotic features versus none.

RESULTS

Delirium with any psychotic features occurred in 44.5% (163 of 366). Of the 366, 119 (32.5%) had only hallucinations (Hall), 14 (3.8%) had only delusions (Del), and 30 (8.2%) had both (Both). In the psychotic group (n = 163), 73.0% were Hall, 8.6% Del, and 18.4% Both. All psychotic patient groupings had significantly greater delirium severity on the Delirium Rating Scale Revised-98. Delusions and hallucinations were discordant for occurring together. The discriminant model found increased odds of having psychosis as 3 symptom severities increased (visuospatial ability, thought process, and sleep-wake cycle) where these each represented a delirium core domain. The noncore symptom of lability of affect had high odds ratio for psychosis, while motor retardation reduced odds of psychosis in this model.

CONCLUSIONS

Consistent with prior reports, psychosis occurred in less than half of delirious patients with delusions being infrequent, and an association with affective lability was found. We are the first to report that psychotic features are a marker for more severe delirium affecting all core domains. Given that previous functional magnetic resonance imaging research found a correlation between neural network dysconnectivity with greater severity of delirium, psychotic symptoms might be a clinical marker for greater underlying cerebral cortical neural circuitry dysfunction.

Is There a Role for Medication in Managing Delirium with Dementia?

People with dementia are more likely to develop delirium. We conducted a brief literature search and give a pragmatic overview of the key issues. Making rational and safe prescribing decisions is highly influenced by organisational culture and embedded staff practices. Comprehensive assessment for unmet physical, psychological, and social needs is an important intervention in itself. Taking a broad overview of possible pharmacological interventions should include stopping inappropriate medications and prescribing for key drivers of the underlying causes of delirium. Prescribing psychotropic medications may be indicated where there is significant distress or risk to the person with dementia and risk to those around them. It is vital to consider the dementia subtype and, where possible, involve family and friend carers in the decision-making process. Medications should be prescribed at the lowest possible dose for the least amount of time after carefully weighing risks versus benefits and documenting these. While these cases are challenging for staff and families, it can be rewarding to improve the quality of life and lessen distress for the person with dementia. There are also opportunities for informing family and friend carers, educating the wider multidisciplinary team, and promoting organisational change.

Consensus of the Liaison-Psychiatry Committee of the Colombian Psychiatric Association on the diagnosis and treatment of delirium in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic

The pandemic caused by the new coronavirus named SARS-CoV-2 poses unprecedented challenges in the health care. Among them is the increase in cases of delirium. The severe SARS-CoV-2 disease, COVID-19, has common vulnerabilities with delirium and produces alterations in organs such as the lungs or the brain, among others, which have the potential to trigger the mental disorder. In fact, delirium may be the first manifestation of the infection, before fever, general malaise, cough or respiratory disturbances. It is widely supported that delirium increases the morbidity and mortality in those who suffer from it during hospitalization, so it should be actively sought to carry out the relevant interventions. In the absence of evidence on the approach to delirium in the context of COVID-19, this consensus was developed on three fundamental aspects: diagnosis, non-pharmacological treatment and pharmacological treatment, in patients admitted to the general hospital. The document contains recommendations on the systematic use of diagnostic tools, when to hospitalize the patient with delirium, the application of non-pharmacological actions within the restrictions imposed by COVID-19, and the use of antipsychotics, taking into account the most relevant side effects and pharmacological interactions.

Pharmacotherapy for elderly patients with delirium in a general ward setting: A retrospective study

Antipsychotic medications are widely used in patients with delirium. However, antipsychotics may lead to various adverse events including cardiac arrythmias, extrapyramidal side effects, and oversedation. This study aimed to investigate whether non-antipsychotic medications including ramelteon, suvorexant, and trazodone are useful for the treatment of elderly inpatients with delirium in a general ward setting. This was a retrospective cohort study using medical chart reviews of all consecutive inpatients with hyperactive forms of delirium who were admitted to a regional general hospital. The primary outcome of this study was to evaluate whether non-antipsychotic medication (ramelteon, suvorexant, and trazodone) is inferior, in terms of efficacy and safety, to antipsychotic medication in delirium treatment. Of 154 patients who consulted psychiatrists during the study period, 33 patients were diagnosed with hyperactive delirium. Of these patients, 21 were categorized into the antipsychotic medication group, and 12 were categorized into the non-antipsychotic medication group. The duration of delirium after pharmacological treatments was not statistically different between the two groups. However, the rates of adverse events related to psychotropic medications in the antipsychotic medication group were significantly higher than that in the non-antipsychotic medication group. This study demonstrated that, in the treatment of elderly patients with delirium, non-antipsychotic drugs, such as suvorexant, ramelteon, and trazodone, could be more useful than antipsychotics in terms of efficacy and safety.

Survey of psychiatrists and psychiatry residents in Colombia about their preventive and therapeutic practices in delirium

OBJECTIVE

To describe pharmacological and non-pharmacological practices for delirium, carried out by psychiatry residents and psychiatrists in Colombia.

METHODS

An anonymous survey was conducted based on the consensus of experts of the Liaison Psychiatry Committee of the Asociación Colombiana de Psiquiatría [Colombian Psychiatric Association] and on the literature review. It was sent by email to the association members.

RESULTS

101 clinicians participated. Non-pharmacological preventive measures such as psychoeducation, correction of sensory problems or sleep hygiene are performed by 70% or more. Only about 1 in 10 participants are part of an institutional multi-component prevention programme. The preventive prescription of drugs was less than 20%. Regarding non-pharmacological treatment, more than 75% recommend correction of sensory difficulties, control of stimuli and reorientation. None of the participants indicated that the care at their centres is organised to enhance non-pharmacological treatment. 17.8% do not use medication in the treatment of delirium. Those who use it prefer haloperidol or quetiapine, particularly in hyperactive or mixed motor subtypes.

CONCLUSIONS

The practices of the respondents coincide with those of other experts around the world. In general, non-pharmacological actions are individual initiatives, which demonstrates the need in Colombian health institutions to commit to addressing delirium, in particular when its prevalence and consequences are indicators of quality of care.

Interventions for palliative symptom control in COVID-19 patients

BACKGROUND

Individuals dying of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may experience distressing symptoms such as breathlessness or delirium. Palliative symptom management can alleviate symptoms and improve the quality of life of patients. Various treatment options such as opioids or breathing techniques have been discussed for use in COVID-19 patients. However, guidance on symptom management of COVID-19 patients in palliative care has often been derived from clinical experiences and guidelines for the treatment of patients with other illnesses. An understanding of the effectiveness of pharmacological and non-pharmacological palliative interventions to manage specific symptoms of COVID-19 patients is required.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control in individuals with COVID-19.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (including Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP), medRxiv); Web of Science Core Collection (Science Citation Index Expanded, Emerging Sources); CINAHL; WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease; and COAP Living Evidence on COVID-19 to identify completed and ongoing studies without language restrictions until 23 March 2021. We screened the reference lists of relevant review articles and current treatment guidelines for further literature.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We followed standard Cochrane methodology as outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We included studies evaluating palliative symptom management for individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 receiving interventions for palliative symptom control, with no restrictions regarding comorbidities, age, gender, or ethnicity. Interventions comprised pharmacological as well as non-pharmacological treatment (e.g. acupressure, physical therapy, relaxation, or breathing techniques). We searched for the following types of studies: randomized controlled trials (RCT), quasi-RCTs, controlled clinical trials, controlled before-after studies, interrupted time series (with comparison group), prospective cohort studies, retrospective cohort studies, (nested) case-control studies, and cross-sectional studies. We searched for studies comparing pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control with standard care. We excluded studies evaluating palliative interventions for symptoms caused by other terminal illnesses. If studies enrolled populations with or exposed to multiple diseases, we would only include these if the authors provided subgroup data for individuals with COVID-19. We excluded studies investigating interventions for symptom control in a curative setting, for example patients receiving life-prolonging therapies such as invasive ventilation.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used a modified version of the Newcastle Ottawa Scale for non-randomized studies of interventions (NRSIs) to assess bias in the included studies. We included the following outcomes: symptom relief (primary outcome); quality of life; symptom burden; satisfaction of patients, caregivers, and relatives; serious adverse events; and grade 3 to 4 adverse events. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.  As meta-analysis was not possible, we used tabulation to synthesize the studies and histograms to display the outcomes.  MAIN RESULTS: Overall, we identified four uncontrolled retrospective cohort studies investigating pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control in hospitalized patients and patients in nursing homes. None of the studies included a comparator. We rated the risk of bias high across all studies. We rated the certainty of the evidence as very low for the primary outcome symptom relief, downgrading mainly for high risk of bias due to confounding and unblinded outcome assessors. Pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control We identified four uncontrolled retrospective cohort studies (five references) investigating pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control. Two references used the same register to form their cohorts, and study investigators confirmed a partial overlap of participants. We therefore do not know the exact number of participants, but individual reports included 61 to 2105 participants. Participants received multimodal pharmacological interventions: opioids, neuroleptics, anticholinergics, and benzodiazepines for relieving dyspnea (breathlessness), delirium, anxiety, pain, audible upper airway secretions, respiratory secretions, nausea, cough, and unspecified symptoms.  Primary outcome: symptom relief All identified studies reported this outcome. For all symptoms (dyspnea, delirium, anxiety, pain, audible upper airway secretions, respiratory secretions, nausea, cough, and unspecified symptoms), a majority of interventions were rated as completely or partially effective by outcome assessors (treating clinicians or nursing staff). Interventions used in the studies were opioids, neuroleptics, anticholinergics, and benzodiazepines.  We are very uncertain about the effect of pharmacological interventions on symptom relief (very low-certainty evidence). The initial rating of the certainty of evidence was low since we only identified uncontrolled NRSIs. Our main reason for downgrading the certainty of evidence was high risk of bias due to confounding and unblinded outcome assessors. We therefore did not find evidence to confidently support or refute whether pharmacological interventions may be effective for palliative symptom relief in COVID-19 patients. Secondary outcomes We planned to include the following outcomes: quality of life; symptom burden; satisfaction of patients, caregivers, and relatives; serious adverse events; and grade 3 to 4 adverse events. We did not find any data for these outcomes, or any other information on the efficacy and safety of used interventions. Non-pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control None of the identified studies used non-pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found very low certainty evidence for the efficacy of pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom relief in COVID-19 patients. We found no evidence on the safety of pharmacological interventions or efficacy and safety of non-pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control in COVID-19 patients. The evidence presented here has no specific implications for palliative symptom control in COVID-19 patients because we cannot draw any conclusions about the effectiveness or safety based on the identified evidence. More evidence is needed to guide clinicians, nursing staff, and caregivers when treating symptoms of COVID-19 patients at the end of life. Specifically, future studies ought to investigate palliative symptom control in prospectively registered studies, using an active-controlled setting, assess patient-reported outcomes, and clearly define interventions. The publication of the results of ongoing studies will necessitate an update of this review. The conclusions of an updated review could differ from those of the present review and may allow for a better judgement regarding pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control in COVID-19 patients.

Antipsychotics and Lorazepam During Delirium: Are We Harming Older Patients? A Real-Life Data Study

BACKGROUND

Delirium affects approximately one out of three older hospitalized patients and is associated with poor clinical outcomes. Approaches used to manage delirium consist of non-pharmacological and pharmacological interventions. Antipsychotics and lorazepam are commonly used to treat symptoms of delirium, but conflicting data exist on the effect of these drugs on the outcomes of delirium.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate whether the use of antipsychotics, with or without lorazepam, increases the risk of prolonged hospital stay, post-discharge institutionalization, and in-hospital mortality in older patients with delirium.

METHODS

In this retrospective chart review study, we included acutely ill patients aged ≥ 65 years who were admitted to a geriatric ward and diagnosed with delirium. Patients were stratified into three groups based on whether or not they received antipsychotics and lorazepam to manage delirium: (0) no antipsychotics; (1) antipsychotics only; and (2) antipsychotics plus lorazepam. Length of hospital stay (LOS) and frequencies of post-discharge institutionalization and in-hospital mortality were compared.

RESULTS

In total, 212 patients with delirium were included (mean age 81.9 ± 5.6 years); 40 did not receive antipsychotics (18.9%), 123 received antipsychotics only (58.0%) and 49 received antipsychotics and lorazepam (23.1%). There was a trend to a longer LOS in patients who received both antipsychotics and lorazepam (median LOS group 0 = 8.0 days, group 1 = 10.0 days, and group 2 = 12.0 days). Furthermore, trends to a higher incidence of post-discharge institutionalization and in-hospital mortality were observed in patients who received both treatments (institutionalization group 0 = 45.0%, group 1 = 59.3%, group 2 = 81.6%; and in-hospital mortality group 0 = 7.5%, group 1 = 10.6%, group 2 = 16.3%).

CONCLUSION

The use of antipsychotics, with or without lorazepam, during delirium is associated with increased risks of poor outcomes. These findings suggest that clinicians should be cautious about routine prescribing of these drugs to older patients with delirium. Further investigation is needed to clarify this association.

Consensus of the Liaison-Psychiatry Committee of the Colombian Psychiatric Association on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Delirium in the Context of the COVID-19 Pandemic

The pandemic caused by the new coronavirus named SARS-CoV-2 poses unprecedented challenges in the health care. Among them is the increase in cases of delirium. The severe SARS-CoV-2 disease, COVID-19, has common vulnerabilities with delirium and produces alterations in organs such as the lungs or the brain, among others, which have the potential to trigger the mental disorder. In fact, delirium may be the first manifestation of the infection, before fever, general malaise, cough or respiratory disturbances. It is widely supported that delirium increases the morbidity and mortality in those who suffer from it during hospitalization, so it should be actively sought to carry out the relevant interventions. In the absence of evidence on the approach to delirium in the context of COVID-19, this consensus was developed on three fundamental aspects: diagnosis, non-pharmacological treatment and pharmacological treatment, in patients admitted to the general hospital. The document contains recommendations on the systematic use of diagnostic tools, when to hospitalize the patient with delirium, the application of non-pharmacological actions within the restrictions imposed by COVID-19, and the use of antipsychotics, taking into account the most relevant side effects and pharmacological interactions.

Safety and effectiveness of antipsychotic medication for delirium in patients with advanced cancer: A large-scale multicenter prospective observational study in real-world palliative care settings

OBJECTIVE

To clarify the safety and effectiveness of antipsychotic medication for delirium in patients with advanced cancer receiving palliative care.

METHODS

This was a prospective observational study involving consecutive patients with advanced cancer and delirium receiving antipsychotics in inpatient hospices or psycho-oncology settings. Adjusted mean scores of the Delirium Rating Scale Revised-98 (DRS; range: 0-39) were calculated at baseline and Day 3 using generalized estimating equations. Adverse events over 7 days were evaluated.

RESULTS

Data from 756 patients were analyzed (Mage = 72 ± 11 years, 62% male, 48% bedridden). The adjusted mean DRS score significantly decreased after antipsychotics administration (21.5 [95% confidence interval 19.5 to 23.4] to 20.8 [18.9 to 22.8], p = 0.03, effect size [ES] = 0.02). Significant improvement was associated with age of 75 or older (ES = 0.07), better performance status (0.32), longer estimated prognosis (0.25), psycho-oncological consultation settings (0.20), hyperactive (0.14) or mix-motor subtypes (0.24) of delirium, and quetiapine administration (0.19); significant deterioration was observed in patients with "days" prognosis (0.18). Extrapyramidal symptoms (9.8%) and somnolence (8.5%) were the most prevalent adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of antipsychotics as part of comprehensive delirium management was safe and may provide some symptomatic benefits for patients with terminal illness and delirium. Along with adequate non-pharmacological interventions, judicious use of antipsychotics is still recommended.

Differential clinical characteristics, management and outcome of delirium among ward compared with intensive care unit patients

BACKGROUND

Delirium is common in hospitalised patients but its epidemiology remains poorly characterised.

AIMS

To test the hypothesis that patient demographics, clinical phenotype, management and outcomes of patient with delirium in hospital ward patients differ from intensive care unit (ICU) patients.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort of patients admitted to an Australian university-affiliated hospital between March 2013 and April 2017 and coded for delirium at discharge using the International Classification of Diseases System, 10th revision, criteria.

RESULTS

Among 61 032 hospitalised patients, 2864 (4.7%) were coded for delirium. From these, we studied a random sample of 100 ward patients and 100 ICU patients. Ward patients were older (median age: 84 vs 65 years; P < 0.0001), more likely to have dementia (38% vs 2% for ICU patients; P < 0.0001) and less likely to have had surgery (24% vs 62%; P < 0.0001). Of ward patients, 74% had hypoactive delirium, while 64% of ICU patients had agitated delirium (P < 0.0001). Persistent delirium at hospital discharge was more common among ward patients (66% vs 17%, P < 0.0001). On multivariable analysis, age and dementia predicted persistent delirium, while surgery predicted recovery.

CONCLUSIONS

Delirium in ward patients is profoundly different from delirium in ICU patients. It has a dominant hypoactive clinical phenotype, is preceded by dementia and is less likely to recover at hospital discharge. Therefore, delirium prevention, detection and goals of care should be adapted to the environment in which it occurs.

Survey of psychiatrists and psychiatry residents in Colombia about their preventive and therapeutic practices in delirium

OBJECTIVE

To describe pharmacological and non-pharmacological practices for delirium, carried out by psychiatry residents and psychiatrists in Colombia.

METHODS

An anonymous survey was conducted based on the consensus of experts of the Liaison Psychiatry Committee of the Asociación Colombiana de Psiquiatría [Colombian Psychiatric Association] and on the literature review. It was sent by email to the association members.

RESULTS

101 clinicians participated. Non-pharmacological preventive measures such as psychoeducation, correction of sensory problems or sleep hygiene are performed by 70% or more. Only about 1 in 10 participants are part of an institutional multi-component prevention programme. The preventive prescription of drugs was less than 20%. Regarding non-pharmacological treatment, more than 75% recommend correction of sensory difficulties, control of stimuli and reorientation. None of the participants indicated that the care at their centres is organised to enhance non-pharmacological treatment. 17.8% do not use medication in the treatment of delirium. Those who use it prefer haloperidol or quetiapine, particularly in hyperactive or mixed motor subtypes.

CONCLUSIONS

The practices of the respondents coincide with those of other experts around the world. In general, non-pharmacological actions are individual initiatives, which demonstrates the need in Colombian health institutions to commit to addressing delirium, in particular when its prevalence and consequences are indicators of quality of care.

Olanzapine Versus Haloperidol for Treatment of Delirium in Patients with Advanced Cancer: A Phase III Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

Treatment of delirium often includes haloperidol. Second-generation antipsychotics like olanzapine have emerged as an alternative with possibly fewer side effects. The aim of this multicenter, phase III, randomized clinical trial was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of olanzapine with haloperidol for the treatment of delirium in hospitalized patients with advanced cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Eligible adult patients (≥18 years) with advanced cancer and delirium (Delirium Rating Scale-Revised-98 [DRS-R-98] total score ≥17.75) were randomized 1:1 to receive either haloperidol or olanzapine (age-adjusted, titratable doses). Primary endpoint was delirium response rate (DRR), defined as number of patients with DRS-R-98 severity score <15.25 and ≥4.5 points reduction. Secondary endpoints included time to response (TTR), tolerability, and delirium-related distress.

RESULTS

Between January 2011 and June 2016, 98 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. DRR was 45% (95% confidence interval [CI], 31-59) for olanzapine and 57% (95% CI, 43-71) for haloperidol (Δ DRR -12%; odds ratio [OR], 0.61; 95% CI, 0.2-1.4; p = .23). Mean TTR was 4.5 days (95% CI, 3.2-5.9 days) for olanzapine and 2.8 days (95% CI, 1.9-3.7 days; p = .18) for haloperidol. Grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 5 patients (10.2%) and 10 patients (20.4%) in the olanzapine and haloperidol arm, respectively. Distress rates were similar in both groups. The study was terminated early because of futility.

CONCLUSION

Delirium treatment with olanzapine in hospitalized patients with advanced cancer did not result in improvement of DRR or TTR compared with haloperidol. Clinical trial identification number. NCT01539733. Dutch Trial Register. NTR2559.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Guidelines recommend that pharmacological interventions for delirium treatment in adults with cancer should be limited to patients who have distressing delirium symptoms. It was suggested that atypical antipsychotics, such as olanzapine, outperform haloperidol in efficacy and safety. However, collective data comparing the efficacy and safety of typical versus atypical antipsychotics in patients with cancer are limited. If targeted and judicious use of antipsychotics is considered for the treatment of delirium in patients with advanced cancer, this study demonstrated that there was no statistically significant difference in response to haloperidol or olanzapine. Olanzapine showed an overall better safety profile compared with haloperidol, although this difference was not statistically significant.

Drug therapy for delirium in terminally ill adults

BACKGROUND

Delirium is a syndrome characterised by an acute disturbance of attention and awareness which develops over a short time period and fluctuates in severity over the course of the day. It is commonly experienced during inpatient admission in the terminal phase of illness. It can cause symptoms such as agitation and hallucinations and is distressing for terminally ill people, their families and staff. Delirium may arise from any number of causes and treatment should aim to address these causes. When this is not possible, or treatment is unsuccessful, drug therapy to manage the symptoms may become necessary. This is the second update of the review first published in 2004.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of drug therapies to manage delirium symptoms in terminally ill adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and PsycINFO from inception to July 2019, reference lists of retrieved papers, and online trial registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials of drug therapies in any dose by any route, compared to another drug therapy, a non-pharmacological approach, placebo, standard care or wait-list control, for the management of delirium symptoms in terminally ill adults (18 years or older).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently screened citations, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Primary outcomes were delirium symptoms; agitation score; adverse events. Secondary outcomes were: use of rescue medication; cognitive status; survival. We applied the GRADE approach to assess the overall quality of the evidence for each outcome and we include eight 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four studies (three new to this update), with 399 participants. Most participants had advanced cancer or advanced AIDS, and mild- to moderate-severity delirium. Meta-analysis was not possible because no two studies examined the same comparison. Each study was at high risk of bias for at least one criterion. Most evidence was low to very low quality, downgraded due to very serious study limitations, imprecision or because there were so few data. Most studies reported delirium symptoms; two reported agitation scores; three reported adverse events with data on extrapyramidal effects; and none reported serious adverse events. 1. Haloperidol versus placebo There may be little to no difference between placebo and haloperidol in delirium symptoms within 24 hours (mean difference (MD) 0.34, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.07 to 0.75; 133 participants). Haloperidol may slightly worsen delirium symptoms compared with placebo at 48 hours (MD 0.49, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.88; 123 participants with mild- to moderate-severity delirium). Haloperidol may reduce agitation slightly compared with placebo between 24 and 48 hours (MD -0.14, 95% -0.28 to -0.00; 123 participants with mild- to moderate-severity delirium). Haloperidol probably increases extrapyramidal adverse effects compared with placebo (MD 0.79, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.41; 123 participants with mild- to moderate-severity delirium). 2. Haloperidol versus risperidone There may be little to no difference in delirium symptoms with haloperidol compared with risperidone within 24 hours (MD -0.42, 95% CI -0.90 to 0.06; 126 participants) or 48 hours (MD -0.36, 95% CI -0.92 to 0.20; 106 participants with mild- to moderate-severity delirium). Agitation scores and adverse events were not reported for this comparison. 3. Haloperidol versus olanzapine We are uncertain whether haloperidol reduces delirium symptoms compared with olanzapine within 24 hours (MD 2.36, 95% CI -0.75 to 5.47; 28 participants) or 48 hours (MD 1.90, 95% CI -1.50 to 5.30, 24 participants). Agitation scores and adverse events were not reported for this comparison. 4. Risperidone versus placebo Risperidone may slightly worsen delirium symptoms compared with placebo within 24 hours (MD 0.76, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.22; 129 participants); and at 48 hours (MD 0.85, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.38; 111 participants with mild- to moderate-severity delirium). There may be little to no difference in agitation with risperidone compared with placebo between 24 and 48 hours (MD -0.05, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.09; 111 participants with mild- to moderate-severity delirium). Risperidone may increase extrapyramidal adverse effects compared with placebo (MD 0.73 95% CI 0.09 to 1.37; 111 participants with mild- to moderate-severity delirium). 5. Lorazepam plus haloperidol versus placebo plus haloperidol We are uncertain whether lorazepam plus haloperidol compared with placebo plus haloperidol improves delirium symptoms within 24 hours (MD 2.10, 95% CI -1.00 to 5.20; 50 participants with moderate to severe delirium), reduces agitation within 24 hours (MD 1.90, 95% CI 0.90 to 2.80; 52 participants), or increases adverse events (RR 0.70, 95% CI -0.19 to 2.63; 31 participants with moderate to severe delirium). 6. Haloperidol versus chlorpromazine We are uncertain whether haloperidol reduces delirium symptoms compared with chlorpromazine at 48 hours (MD 0.37, 95% CI -4.58 to 5.32; 24 participants). Agitation scores were not reported. We are uncertain whether haloperidol increases adverse events compared with chlorpromazine (MD 0.46, 95% CI -4.22 to 5.14; 24 participants). 7. Haloperidol versus lorazepam We are uncertain whether haloperidol reduces delirium symptoms compared with lorazepam at 48 hours (MD -4.88, 95% CI -9.70 to 0.06; 17 participants). Agitation scores were not reported. We are uncertain whether haloperidol increases adverse events compared with lorazepam (MD -6.66, 95% CI -14.85 to 1.53; 17 participants). 8. Lorazepam versus chlorpromazine We are uncertain whether lorazepam reduces delirium symptoms compared with chlorpromazine at 48 hours (MD 5.25, 95% CI 0.38 to 10.12; 19 participants), or increases adverse events (MD 7.12, 95% CI 1.08 to 15.32; 18 participants). Agitation scores were not reported.

SECONDARY OUTCOMES

use of rescue medication, cognitive impairment, survival There were insufficient data to draw conclusions or assess GRADE.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no high-quality evidence to support or refute the use of drug therapy for delirium symptoms in terminally ill adults. We found low-quality evidence that risperidone or haloperidol may slightly worsen delirium symptoms of mild to moderate severity for terminally ill people compared with placebo. We found moderate- to low-quality evidence that haloperidol and risperidone may slightly increase extrapyramidal adverse events for people with mild- to moderate-severity delirium. Given the small number of studies and participants on which current evidence is based, further research is essential.

Palliative Care in Advanced Dementia

Dementia syndrome is common and expected to increase significantly among older people and characterized by the loss of cognitive, psychological and physical functions. Palliative care is applicable for people with dementia, however they are less likely to have access to palliative care. This narrative review summarizes specifics of palliative care in advanced dementia. Most people with advanced dementia live and die in institutional care and they suffer a range of burdensome symptoms and complications. Shortly before dying people with advanced dementia suffer symptoms as pain, eating problems, breathlessness, neuropsychiatric symptoms, and complications as respiratory or urinary infections and frequently experience burdensome transitions. Pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions may reduce symptom burden. Sensitive observation and appropriate assessment tools enable health professionals to assess symptoms and needs and to evaluate interventions. Due to lack of decisional capacity, proxy decision making is often necessary. Advanced care planning is an opportunity establishing values and preferences and is associated with comfort and decrease of burdensome interventions. Family carers are important for people with advanced dementia they also experience distress and are in need for support. Recommendations refer to early integration of palliative care, recognizing signs of approaching death, symptom assessment and management, advanced care planning, person-centered care, continuity of care, and collaboration of health care providers.

Clinical management of delirium: The response depends on the subtypes. An observational cohort study in 602 patients

OBJECTIVE

The hypoactive, hyperactive, and mixed subtypes of delirium differently impact patient management and prognosis, yet the evidence remains sparse. Therefore, we examined the outcome of varying management strategies in the subtypes of delirium.

METHODS

In this observational cohort study, 602 patients were managed for delirium over 20 days with the following strategies: supportive care alone or in combination with psychotropics, single, dual, or triple+ psychotropic regimens. Cox regression models were calculated for time to remission and benefit rates (BRs) of management strategies.

RESULTS

Generally, the mixed subtype of delirium caused more severe and persistent delirium, and the hypoactive subtype was more persistent than the hyperactive subtype. The subtypes of delirium were similarly predictive for mortality (P = 0.697) and transfer to inpatient psychiatric care (P = 0.320). In the mixed subtype, overall, psychotropic drugs were administered more often (P = 0.016), and particularly triple+ regimens were administered more commonly compared to hypoactive delirium (P = 0.007). Patients on supportive care benefited most, whereas those on triple+ regimens did worst in terms of remission in all groups of hypoactive, hyperactive, and mixed subtypes (BR: 4.59, CI 2.01-10.48; BR: 4.59, CI 1.76-31.66; BR: 3.36, CI 1.73-6.52; all P < 0.05).

SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS

The mixed subtype was more persistent to management than the hypoactive and hyperactive subtypes. Delirium management remains controversial and, generally, supportive care benefited patients most. Psychopharmacological management for delirium requires careful choosing of and limiting the number of psychotropics.

[Antipsychotic pharmacotherapy for delirious syndromes - only temporary, symptom-oriented and considering QTc time]

BACKGROUND

QTc prolongation is a common and serious side effect of antipsychotics in the treatment of delirium. Nevertheless, the occurrence of ventricular tachycardia is rarely reported, so that the clinical relevance of a QTc prolongation triggered in this way remains unclear.

METHOD

The focus of this review is on the antipsychotic pharmacotherapy of delirium.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

In individual cases, before the prescription of an antipsychotic due to a delirium, a risk-benefit assessment must be made for the patient. For this purpose, patient and substance-specific risk factors for QTc prolongation must be checked and, if possible, reduced. A specific recommendation for an antipsychotic with assured low QTc interference can not be given because all antipsychotics for delirium treatment are potentially QTc-prolonging. Antipsychotic delirium treatment should be monitored, especially in patients with a high risk profile, for QTc prolongation by regular ECG controls.

Dementia with Lewy bodies: Challenges in the diagnosis and management

OBJECTIVE

Dementia with Lewy bodies is the second most common form of neurodegenerative dementia in older age yet is often under-recognised and misdiagnosed. This review aims to provide an overview of the clinical features of dementia with Lewy bodies, discussing the frequent challenges clinicians experience in diagnosing dementia with Lewy bodies, and outlines a practical approach to the clinical management, particularly in the Australian setting.

METHODS

This paper is a narrative review and a semi-structured database (PubMed and MEDLINE) search strategy was implemented. Articles were screened and clinically relevant studies were selected for inclusion.

RESULTS

Dementia with Lewy bodies is clinically characterised by complex visual hallucinations, spontaneous motor parkinsonism, prominent cognitive fluctuations and rapid eye movement sleep behaviour disorder. Neuropsychiatric features and autonomic dysfunction are also common. The new diagnostic criteria and specific diagnostic biomarkers help to improve detection rates and diagnostic accuracy, as well as guide appropriate management. Clinical management of dementia with Lewy bodies is challenging and requires an individualised multidisciplinary approach with specialist input.

CONCLUSION

Dementia with Lewy bodies is a common form of dementia. It often presents as a diagnostic challenge to clinicians, particularly at early stages of disease, and in patients with mixed neuropathological changes, which occur in over 50% of people with dementia with Lewy bodies. Prompt diagnosis and comprehensive treatment strategies are important in improving patients' care.

A Scoping Review to Map Empirical Evidence Regarding Key Domains and Questions in the Clinical Pathway of Delirium in Palliative Care

CONTEXT

Based on the clinical care pathway of delirium in palliative care (PC), a published analytic framework (AF) formulated research questions in key domains and recommended a scoping review to identify evidence gaps.

OBJECTIVES

To produce a literature map for key domains of the published AF: screening, prognosis and diagnosis, management, and the health-related outcomes.

METHODS

A standard scoping review framework was used by an interdisciplinary study team of nurse- and physician-delirium researchers, an information specialist, and review methodologists to conduct the review. Knowledge user engagement provided context in refining 19 AF questions. A peer-reviewed search strategy identified citations in Medline, PsycINFO, Embase, and CINAHL databases between 1980 and 2018. Two reviewers independently screened records for inclusion using explicit study eligibility criteria for the population, design, delirium diagnosis, and investigational intent.

RESULTS

Of 104 studies reporting empirical data and meeting eligibility criteria, most were conducted in patients with cancer (73.1%) and in inpatient PC units (52%). The most frequent study design was a one or more group, nonrandomized trial or cohort (67.3%). Evidence gaps were identified: delirium risk prediction; comparative effectiveness and harms of prevention, variability in delirium management across PC settings, advanced directive and substitute decision-maker input, and transition of care location; and estimating delirium reversibility. Future rigorous primary studies are required to address these gaps and preliminary concerns regarding the quality of extant literature.

CONCLUSION

Substantial evidence gaps exist, providing opportunities for future research regarding the assessment, prognosis, and management of delirium in PC settings.