Dataset Information

Pharmacological interventions for prevention and management of delirium in intensive care patients: a systematic overview of reviews and meta-analyses.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES:We assessed the evidence from reviews and meta-analyses of randomised clinical trials on the effects of pharmacological prevention and management of delirium in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. METHODS:We searched for reviews in July 2017 in: Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index, BIOSIS Previews, CINAHL and LILACS. We assessed whether reviews were systematic according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and assessed the methodological quality using ROBIS. OUTCOME MEASURES:Primary outcomes: all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, prevention of delirium and management of delirium. SECONDARY OUTCOMES:quality of life; non-serious adverse events and cognitive function. RESULTS:We included 378 reviews: 369 narrative reviews, eight semisystematic reviews which failed on a maximum of two arbitrary PRISMA criteria and one systematic review fulfilling all 27 PRISMA criteria. For the prevention of delirium, we identified the one systematic review and eight semisystematic reviews all assessing the effects of alpha-2-agonists. None found evidence of a reduction of mortality (systematic review RR 0.99, 95%?CI 0.79 to 1.24). The systematic review and three semisystematic reviews found no evidence of an effect for the prevention of delirium (systematic review RR 0.85, 0.63 to 1.14). Conversely, four semisystematic reviews found a beneficial effect. Serious adverse events, quality of life, non-serious adverse events and cognitive function were not assessed. We did not identify any systematic or semisystematic reviews addressing other pharmacological interventions for the prevention of delirium. For the management of manifest delirium, we did not identify any systematic or semisystematic review assessing any pharmacological agents. CONCLUSION:Based on systematic reviews, the evidence for the use of pharmacological interventions for prevention or management of delirium is poor or sparse. A systematic review with low risk of bias assessing the effects of pharmacological prevention of delirium and management of manifest delirium in ICU patients is urgently needed. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42016046628.

SUBMITTER: Barbateskovic M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6377549 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE:Delirium in the intensive care units (ICUs) is prevalent, with both delirium duration and delirium severity associated with adverse outcomes. We designed a pragmatic trial to test the efficacy of a pharmacological management of delirium (PMD) bundle in improving delirium/coma-free days and reducing delirium severity among ICU patients. DESIGN:A randomized pragmatic clinical trial. SETTING:Medical, surgical, and progressive ICUs of three tertiary care hospitals. PARTICIPANTS:A total of 351 critically ill patients. INTERVENTION:A multicomponent PMD bundle consisting of reducing the exposure to 20 definite anticholinergic medications and benzodiazepines and prescribing low-dose haloperidol. MEASUREMENTS:The primary outcomes were delirium/coma-free days, measured through the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale and the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU (CAM-ICU), and delirium severity, measured through Delirium Rating Scale-Revised-98 and the CAM-ICU-7. Secondary outcomes were in-hospital and posthospital discharge 30-day mortality, ICU and hospital lengths of stay, and delirium-related hospital complications. RESULTS:We randomized 351 critically ill delirious patients (mean age = 59.3 years [SD = 16.9 years]; 52% female, 42% African Americans) to receive the PMD bundle or usual care. There were no significant differences in median delirium/coma-free days at day 8 (PMD vs usual care = 4 [interquartile range {IQR} = 2-7] days vs 5 [IQR = 1-7] days; P = .888) or at day 30 (PMD vs usual care = 26 [IQR 19-29] days vs 26 [IQR, 14-29] days; P = .991). There were no significant differences for decrease in delirium severity at day 8, but at hospital discharge, the intervention group showed a greater reduction in delirium severity (mean decrease in CAM-ICU-7 score for PMD vs usual care = 3.2 [SD = 3.3] vs 2.5 [SD = 3.2]; P = .046). No differences were observed between groups for ICU and hospital lengths of stay, mortality, and delirium-related hospital complications. Similar results were observed when analyses were limited to patients 65 years or older and 75 years or older. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE:Implementing the PMD bundle in the ICU did not reduce delirium duration or severity among critically ill patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION:clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00842608. J Am Geriatr Soc 67:1057-1065, 2019.

Project description:ImportanceAlthough several pharmacological interventions for delirium have been investigated, their overall benefit and safety remain unclear.ObjectiveTo evaluate evidence regarding pharmacological interventions for delirium treatment and prevention.Data sourcesPubMed, Embase, ProQuest, ScienceDirect, Cochrane Central, Web of Science, ClinicalKey, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to May 17, 2018.Study selectionRandomized clinical trials (RCTs) examining pharmacological interventions for delirium treatment and prevention.Data extraction and synthesisTo extract data according to a predetermined list of interests, the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines were applied, and all meta-analytic procedures were conducted using a random-effects model.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcomes were treatment response in patients with delirium and the incidence of delirium in patients at risk of delirium.ResultsA total of 58 RCTs were included, in which 20 RCTs with 1435 participants (mean age, 63.5 years; 65.1% male) compared the outcomes of treatment and 38 RCTs with 8168 participants (mean age, 70.2 years; 53.4% male) examined the prevention of delirium. A network meta-analysis demonstrated that haloperidol plus lorazepam provided the best response rate for delirium treatment (odds ratio [OR], 28.13; 95% CI, 2.38-333.08) compared with placebo/control. For delirium prevention, the ramelteon, olanzapine, risperidone, and dexmedetomidine hydrochloride groups had significantly lower delirium occurrence rates than placebo/control (OR, 0.07; 95% CI, 0.01-0.66 for ramelteon; OR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.09-0.69 for olanzapine; OR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.07-0.99 for risperidone; and OR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.31-0.80 for dexmedetomidine hydrochloride). None of the pharmacological treatments were significantly associated with a higher risk of all-cause mortality compared with placebo/control.Conclusions and relevanceThis network meta-analysis demonstrated that haloperidol plus lorazepam might be the best treatment and ramelteon the best preventive medicine for delirium. None of the pharmacological interventions for treatment or prophylaxis increased the all-cause mortality.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Stroke secondary prevention guidelines recommend medication prescription and adherence, active education and behavioural counselling regarding lifestyle risk factors. To impact on recurrent vascular events, positive behaviour/s must be adopted and sustained as a lifestyle choice, requiring theoretically informed behaviour change and self-management interventions. A growing number of systematic reviews have addressed complex interventions in stroke secondary prevention. Differing terminology, inclusion criteria and overlap of studies between reviews makes the mechanism/s that affect positive change difficult to identify or replicate clinically. Adopting a two-phase approach, this overview will firstly comprehensively summarise systematic reviews in this area and secondly identify and synthesise primary studies in these reviews which provide person-centred, theoretically informed interventions for stroke secondary prevention. METHODS:An overview of reviews will be conducted using a systematic search strategy across the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PubMed and Epistomonikas. INCLUSION CRITERIA:systematic reviews where the population comprises individuals post-stroke or TIA and where data relating to person-centred risk reduction are synthesised for evidence of efficacy when compared to standard care or no intervention. Primary outcomes of interest include mortality, recurrent stroke and other cardiovascular events. In phase 1, two reviewers will independently (1) assess the eligibility of identified reviews for inclusion; (2) rate the quality of included reviews using the ROBIS tool; (3) identify unique primary studies and overlap between reviews; (4) summarise the published evidence supporting person-centred behavioural change and self-management interventions in stroke secondary prevention and (5) identify evidence gaps in this field. In phase 2, two independent reviewers will (1) examine person-centred, primary studies in each review using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR checklist), itemising, where present, theoretical frameworks underpinning interventions; (2) group studies employing theoretically informed interventions by the intervention delivered and by the outcomes reported (3) apply GRADE quality of evidence for each intervention by outcome/s identified from theoretically informed primary studies. Disagreement between reviewers at each process stage will be discussed and a third reviewer consulted. DISCUSSION:This overview will comprehensively bring together the best available evidence supporting person-centred, stroke secondary prevention strategies in an accessible format, identifying current knowledge gaps.

Project description:BACKGROUND:This review aimed to assess the existing evidence regarding the clinical effectiveness and safety of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions in adults with insomnia and identify where research or policy development is needed. METHODS:MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, The Cochrane Library, and PubMed were searched from inception until June 14, 2017, along with relevant gray literature sites. Two reviewers independently screened titles/abstracts and full-text articles, and a single reviewer with an independent verifier completed charting, data abstraction, and quality appraisal. RESULTS:A total of 64 systematic reviews (35 with meta-analysis) were included after screening 5024 titles and abstracts and 525 full-text articles. Eight of the included reviews were rated as high quality using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR2) tool, and over half of the included articles (n?=?40) were rated as low or critically low quality. Consistent evidence of effectiveness across multiple outcomes based on more than one high- or moderate quality review with meta-analysis was found for zolpidem, suvorexant, doxepin, melatonin, and cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), and evidence of effectiveness across multiple outcomes based on one high-quality review with meta-analysis was found for temazepam, triazolam, zopiclone, trazodone, and behavioral interventions. These interventions were mostly evaluated in the short term (<?16 weeks), and there was very little harms data available for the pharmacological interventions making it difficult to evaluate their risk-benefit ratio. CONCLUSIONS:Assuming non-pharmacological interventions are preferable from a safety perspective CBT can be considered an effective first-line therapy for adults with insomnia followed by other behavioral interventions. Short courses of pharmacological interventions can be supplements to CBT or behavioral therapy; however, no evidence regarding the appropriate duration of pharmacological therapy is available from these reviews. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION:PROSPERO CRD42017072527.

Project description:BACKGROUND:First responders are a high-risk population for occupational stress injuries as they often encounter prolonged stress within their line of work. The aim of this rapid overview of reviews is to summarize existing evidence on interventions for the prevention and management of occupational stress injury (OSI) in first responders. METHODS:MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were searched for systematic reviews examining the impact of prevention, rehabilitation, and resilience-building strategies targeting frontline community safety personnel in February 2019. Pairs of reviewers screened titles and abstracts followed by full-text articles and conducted data abstraction and quality appraisal using the AMSTAR II tool. To ensure a rapid overview process, the search strategy was limited to the last 10?years, quality appraisal of reviews and abstraction of study-level data was completed by one person and verified by another, and the quality of the individual primary studies was not appraised. The findings were summarized descriptively. RESULTS:A total of 14 reviews with 47 unique primary studies were found after screening 1393 records. A majority of studies targeted OSI in police officers (78.7%), followed by firefighters (17%) and correctional officers (4.3%). Of the 47 included primary studies, 24 targeted prevention of OSI (i.e., resilience training, stress management, suicide prevention, and other health promotions) and 23 targeted rehabilitation (i.e., drug therapy, psychotherapy, and other therapies). Prevention strategies including resilience training programs had positive outcomes, while suicide prevention and psychotherapy interventions reported mixed results. CONCLUSIONS:Some promising interventions targeting the prevention and rehabilitation of OSI among police officers, firefighters, and correctional officers were identified in the included studies, and these results will serve as a basis for the development of evidence-based strategies to mitigate future risks in this population. However, several gaps were also identified in this area that will require further investigation prior to widespread implementation of effective interventions. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION:PROSPERO CRD42019125945.

Project description:Background: Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a neurodegenerative disease characterized by progressive memory deficits, cognitive decline, and spatial disorientation. Non-pharmacological interventions to treat AD have been reported in many meta-analyses (MAs), but robust conclusions have not been made because of variations in the scope, quality, and findings of these reviews. Objective: This work aimed to review existing MAs to provide an overview of existing evidence on the effects of five non-pharmacological interventions in AD patients on three outcomes: Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), activities of daily living (ADL), and Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-cognitive section (ADAS-cog). Methods: The databases PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science were searched to collect MAs of non-pharmacological interventions for AD. Two reviewers independently conducted literature screening, data extraction, and quality assessment. We assessed the quality of MAs with the Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2 and assessed the evidence quality for significant outcomes using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Results: We found 10 eligible MAs, which included between three (133 patients) and 15 randomized trials (1,217 patients), and five non-pharmacological interventions, namely, acupuncture therapy (40%), exercise intervention (30%), music therapy (10%), cognitive intervention (10%), and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) (10%). All the included MAs were critically low to low quality by AMSTAR 2. Acupuncture therapy and exercise intervention showed the preliminary potential to improve ADL and MMSE. rTMS and acupuncture therapy show benefits in decreasing ADAS-cog, and there were some evidence of improved MMSE with cognitive intervention. All these outcomes scored very low quality to moderate quality of evidence on the GRADE system. Conclusions: Non-pharmacological therapy shows promise for the treatment of AD, but there is still a lack of high-quality evidence. In the future, the quality of the original research needs to be improved, and strictly designed MAs should be carried out following methodological requirements.

Project description:BackgroundAlthough non-pharmacological smoking cessation measures have been widely used among smokers, current research evidence on the effects of smoking cessation is inconsistent and of mixed quality. Moreover, there is a lack of comprehensive evidence synthesis. This study seeks to systematically identify, describe, and evaluate the available evidence for non-pharmacological interventions in smoking populations through evidence mapping (EM), and to search for best-practice smoking cessation programs.MethodsA comprehensive search for relevant studies published from the establishment of the library to January 8, 2023, was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, the Cochrane Library, CNKI, CBM, Wan Fang, and VIP. Two authors independently assessed eligibility and extracted data. The PRISMA statement and AMSTAR 2 tool were used to evaluate the report quality and methodology quality of systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SRs/MAs), respectively. Bubble plots were utilized to display information, such as the study population, intervention type, evidence quality, and original study sample size.ResultsA total of 145 SRs/MAs regarding non-pharmacological interventions for smoking cessation were investigated, with 20 types of interventions identified. The most commonly used interventions were cognitive behaviour education (n = 32, 22.07%), professional counselling (n = 20, 13.79%), and non-nicotine electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) (n = 13, 8.97%). Among them, counselling and behavioural support can improve smoking cessation rates, but the effect varies depending on the characteristics of the support provided. These findings are consistent with previous SRs/MAs. The general population (n = 108, 74.48%) was the main cohort included in the SRs/MAs. The total score of PRISMA for the quality of the reports ranged from 8 to 27, and 13 studies (8.97%) were rated as high confidence, and nine studies (6.21%) as moderate confidence, in the AMSTAR 2 confidence rating.ConclusionsThe abstinence effect of cognitive behaviour education and money incentive intervention has advantages, and non-nicotine e-cigarettes appear to help some smokers transition to less harmful replacement tools. However, the methodological shortcomings of SRs/MAs should be considered. Therefore, to better guide future practice in the field of non-pharmacological smoking cessation, it is essential to improve the methodological quality of SRs and carry out high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Dataset Information

Pharmacological interventions for prevention and management of delirium in intensive care patients: a systematic overview of reviews and meta-analyses.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets