Dataset Information

Cholinesterase inhibitors for the treatment of delirium in non-ICU settings.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Delirium is a common clinical syndrome defined as alterations in attention with an additional disturbance in cognition or perception, which develop over a short period of time and tend to fluctuate during the course of the episode. Delirium is commonly treated in hospitals or community settings and is often associated with multiple adverse outcomes such as increased cost, morbidity, and even mortality. The first-line intervention involves a multicomponent non-pharmacological approach that includes ensuring effective communication and reorientation in addition to providing reassurance or a suitable care environment. There are currently no drugs approved specifically for the treatment of delirium. Clinically, however, various medications are employed to provide symptomatic relief, such as antipsychotic medications and cholinesterase inhibitors, among others.

Objectives

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of cholinesterase inhibitors for treating people with established delirium in a non-intensive care unit (ICU) setting.

Search methods

We searched ALOIS, which is the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's Specialised Register, on 26 October 2017. We also cross-checked the reference lists of included studies to identify any potentially eligible trials.

Selection criteria

We included randomised controlled trials, published or unpublished, reported in English or Chinese, which compared cholinesterase inhibitors to placebo or other drugs intended to treat people with established delirium in a non-ICU setting.

Data collection and analysis

We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary outcomes were duration of delirium, severity of delirium, and adverse events. The secondary outcomes were use of rescue medications, persistent cognitive impairment, length of hospitalisation, institutionalisation, mortality, cost of intervention, leaving the study early, and quality of life. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs); for continuous outcomes we calculated the mean difference (MD) with 95% CIs. We assessed the quality of evidence using GRADE to generate a 'Summary of findings' table.

Main results

We included one study involving 15 participants from the UK. The included participants were diagnosed with delirium based on the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) criteria. Eight males and seven females were included, with a mean age of 82.5 years. Seven of the 15 participants had comorbid dementia at baseline. The risk of bias was low in all domains.The study compared rivastigmine with placebo. We did not find any clear differences between the two groups in terms of duration of delirium (MD -3.6, 95% CI -15.6 to 8.4), adverse events (nausea, RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.01 to 6.29), use of rescue medications (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.1), mortality (RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.56), and leaving the study early (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.07 to 11.54). Evidence was not available regarding the severity of delirium, persistent cognitive impairment, length of hospitalisation, cost of intervention, or other predefined secondary outcomes.The quality of evidence is low due to the very small sample size.

Authors' conclusions

There is insufficient evidence to support or refute the use of cholinesterase inhibitors for the treatment of delirium in non-ICU settings. No clear benefits or harms associated with cholinesterase inhibitors were observed when compared with placebo due to the lack of data. More trials are required.

SUBMITTER: Yu A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6513030 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background/objectivesDelirium manifests clinically in varying ways across settings. More than 40 instruments currently exist for characterizing the different manifestations of delirium. We evaluated all delirium identification instruments according to their psychometric properties and frequency of citation in published research.DesignWe conducted the systematic review by searching Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Cochrane Library, Excerpta Medica Database (Embase), PsycINFO, PubMed, and Web of Science from January 1, 1974, to January 31, 2020, with the keywords "delirium" and "instruments," along with their known synonyms. We selected only systematic reviews, meta-analyses, or narrative literature reviews including multiple delirium identification instruments.MeasurementsTwo reviewers assessed the eligibility of articles and extracted data on all potential delirium identification instruments. Using the original publication on each instrument, the psychometric properties were examined using the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) framework.ResultsOf 2,542 articles identified, 75 met eligibility criteria, yielding 30 different delirium identification instruments. A count of citations was determined using Scopus for the original publication for each instrument. Each instrument underwent methodological quality review of psychometric properties using COSMIN definitions. An expert panel categorized key domains for delirium identification based on criteria from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)-III through DSM-5. Four instruments were notable for having at least two of three of the following: citation count of 200 or more, strong validation methodology in their original publication, and fulfillment of DSM-5 criteria. These were, alphabetically, Confusion Assessment Method, Delirium Observation Screening Scale, Delirium Rating Scale-Revised-98, and Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale.ConclusionFour commonly used and well-validated instruments can be recommended for clinical and research use. An important area for future investigation is to harmonize these measures to compare and combine studies on delirium.

Project description:ObjectivesBoth delirium duration and delirium severity are associated with adverse patient outcomes. Serum biomarkers associated with delirium duration and delirium severity in ICU patients have not been reliably identified. We conducted our study to identify peripheral biomarkers representing systemic inflammation, impaired neuroprotection, and astrocyte activation associated with delirium duration, delirium severity, and in-hospital mortality.DesignObservational study.SettingThree Indianapolis hospitals.PatientsThree-hundred twenty-one critically ill delirious patients.InterventionsNone.Measurements and main resultsWe analyzed the associations between biomarkers collected at delirium onset and delirium-/coma-free days assessed through Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale/Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU, delirium severity assessed through Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU-7, and in-hospital mortality. After adjusting for age, gender, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score, Charlson comorbidity score, sepsis diagnosis and study intervention group, interleukin-6, -8, and -10, tumor necrosis factor-α, C-reactive protein, and S-100β levels in quartile 4 were negatively associated with delirium-/coma-free days by 1 week and 30 days post enrollment. Insulin-like growth factor-1 levels in quartile 4 were not associated with delirium-/coma-free days at both time points. Interleukin-6, -8, and -10, tumor necrosis factor-α, C-reactive protein, and S-100β levels in quartile 4 were also associated with delirium severity by 1 week. At hospital discharge, interleukin-6, -8, and -10 retained the association but tumor necrosis factor-α, C-reactive protein, and S-100β lost their associations with delirium severity. Insulin-like growth factor-1 levels in quartile 4 were not associated with delirium severity at both time points. Interleukin-8 and S-100β levels in quartile 4 were also associated with higher in-hospital mortality. Interleukin-6 and -10, tumor necrosis factor-α, and insulin-like growth factor-1 were not found to be associated with in-hospital mortality.ConclusionsBiomarkers of systemic inflammation and those for astrocyte and glial activation were associated with longer delirium duration, higher delirium severity, and in-hospital mortality. Utility of these biomarkers early in delirium onset to identify patients at a higher risk of severe and prolonged delirium, and delirium related complications during hospitalization needs to be explored in future studies.

Project description:BackgroundAs an atypical antipsychotic drug, olanzapine is one of the most commonly used drugs for delirium control. There are no systematic evaluations or meta-analyses of the efficacy and safety of olanzapine for delirium control in critically ill adults.ObjectivesIn this meta-analysis, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of olanzapine for delirium control in critically ill adults in the intensive care unit (ICU).Data sources and methodsFrom inception to October 2022, 12 electronic databases were searched. We retrieved randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and retrospective cohort studies of critically ill adults with delirium that compared the effects of olanzapine and other interventions, including routine care (no intervention), nonpharmaceutical interventions and pharmaceutical interventions. The main outcome measures were the (a) relief of delirium symptoms and (b) a decrease in delirium duration. Secondary outcomes were ICU and in-hospital mortality, ICU and hospital length of stay, incidence of adverse events, cognitive function, sleep quality, quality of life, mechanical ventilation time, endotracheal intubation rate and delirium recurrence rate. We applied a random effects model.ResultsData from 10 studies (four RCTs and six retrospective cohort studies) involving 7076 patients (2459 in the olanzapine group and 4617 in the control group) were included. Olanzapine did not effectively relieve delirium symptoms (OR = 1.36, 95% CI [0.83, 2.28], p = 0.21), nor did it shorten the duration of delirium [standardized mean difference (SMD) = 0.02, 95% CI [-1.04, 1.09], p = 0.97] when compared with other interventions. Pooled data from three studies showed that the use of olanzapine reduced the incidence of hypotension (OR = 0.44, 95% CI [0.20, 0.95], p = 0.04) compared with other pharmaceuticals. There was no significant difference in other secondary outcomes, including ICU or hospital length of stay, in-hospital mortality, extrapyramidal reactions, QTc interval prolongation, or overall incidence of other adverse reactions. The number of included studies was not sufficient for performing a comparison between olanzapine and no intervention.ConclusionCompared with other interventions, olanzapine has no advantage in alleviating delirium symptoms and shortening delirium duration in critically ill adults. However, there is some evidence that the rate of hypotension was lower in patients who received olanzapine than in those who received other pharmaceutical interventions. There was a nonsignificant difference in the length of ICU or hospital stay, in-hospital mortality, and other adverse reactions. This study provides reference data for delirium research and clinical drug intervention strategies in critically ill adults.RegistrationProspective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; registration number CRD42021277232).

Project description:BackgroundIn most countries, patients receiving mechanical ventilation (MV) are treated in intensive care units (ICUs). However, in some countries, including Japan, many patients on MV are not treated in ICUs. There are insufficient epidemiological data on these patients. Here, we sought to describe the epidemiology of patients on MV in Japan by comparing and contrasting patients on MV treated in ICUs and in non-ICU settings. A preliminary comparison of patient outcomes between ICU and non-ICU patients was a secondary objective.MethodsData on adult patients receiving MV for at least 3 days in ICUs or non-ICU settings from April 2010 through March 2012 were obtained from the Quality Indicator/Improvement Project, a voluntary data-administration project covering more than 400 acute-care hospitals in Japan. We excluded patients with cancer-related diagnoses. Patient demographic data and the critical care provided were compared between groups.ResultsOver the study period, 17,775 patients on MV were treated only in non-ICU settings, whereas 20,516 patients were treated at least once in ICUs (46.4% vs. 53.6%). Average age was higher in non-ICU patients than in ICU patients (72.8 vs. 70.2, P?<?0.001). Mean number of ventilation days was greater in non-ICU patients (11.7 vs. 9.5, P?<?0.001). Hospital mortality was higher in non-ICU patients (41.4% vs. 38.8%, P?<?0.001). Standard critical care (e.g., arterial line placement, enteral nutrition, and stress-ulcer prevention) was provided significantly less often in non-ICU patients. Multivariate analysis showed that ICU admission significantly decreased hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio 0.713, 95% CI 0.676 to 0.753).ConclusionsA large proportion of Japanese patients on MV were treated in non-ICU settings. Analysis of administrative data indicated preliminarily that hospital mortality rates in these patients were higher in non-ICU settings than in ICUs. Prospective analyses comparing non-ICU and ICU patients on MV by severity scoring are needed.