Dataset Information

Meta-analysis of ICU Delirium Biomarkers and Their Alignment With the NIA-AA Research Framework.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Between 30% and 80% of survivors of critical illness experience cognitive impairment, but the underlying mechanisms remain unknown.

Objective

To determine whether intensive care unit (ICU) delirium biomarkers align with the National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer's Association (NIA-AA) research framework for diagnostic biomarkers for Alzheimer disease and other related dementias (ADRD).

Methods

Ovid MEDLINE, PsycInfo, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched for articles published between January 1, 2000, and February 20, 2020, on the relationship between delirium and biomarkers listed in the NIA-AA framework. Only studies that addressed delirium in the ICU setting and fluid biomarkers were included in these analyses.

Results

Of 61 256 records screened, 38 studies met inclusion criteria, 8 of which were suitable for meta-analysis. In pooled analysis, significant associations were found between ICU delirium and amyloid β-peptide 1-40 (standard mean difference [SMD], 0.42; 95% CI, 0.09-0.75), interleukin (IL)-1 receptor antagonist (SMD, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.21-0.94), and IL-6 (SMD, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.06-0.56). No significant association was observed in pooled analyses between ICU delirium and the other biomarkers. Few studies have examined ICU delirium and pathologic tau or neurodegeneration biomarkers.

Conclusions

Inflammatory biomarkers and amyloid β are associated with ICU delirium and point to potential overlapping mechanisms between delirium and ADRD. Critical care providers should consider integrating diagnostic approaches used in ADRD in their assessment of post-ICU cognitive dysfunction.

SUBMITTER: Chan CK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8897570 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:In 2011, the National Institute on Aging and Alzheimer's Association created separate diagnostic recommendations for the preclinical, mild cognitive impairment, and dementia stages of Alzheimer's disease. Scientific progress in the interim led to an initiative by the National Institute on Aging and Alzheimer's Association to update and unify the 2011 guidelines. This unifying update is labeled a "research framework" because its intended use is for observational and interventional research, not routine clinical care. In the National Institute on Aging and Alzheimer's Association Research Framework, Alzheimer's disease (AD) is defined by its underlying pathologic processes that can be documented by postmortem examination or in vivo by biomarkers. The diagnosis is not based on the clinical consequences of the disease (i.e., symptoms/signs) in this research framework, which shifts the definition of AD in living people from a syndromal to a biological construct. The research framework focuses on the diagnosis of AD with biomarkers in living persons. Biomarkers are grouped into those of ? amyloid deposition, pathologic tau, and neurodegeneration [AT(N)]. This ATN classification system groups different biomarkers (imaging and biofluids) by the pathologic process each measures. The AT(N) system is flexible in that new biomarkers can be added to the three existing AT(N) groups, and new biomarker groups beyond AT(N) can be added when they become available. We focus on AD as a continuum, and cognitive staging may be accomplished using continuous measures. However, we also outline two different categorical cognitive schemes for staging the severity of cognitive impairment: a scheme using three traditional syndromal categories and a six-stage numeric scheme. It is important to stress that this framework seeks to create a common language with which investigators can generate and test hypotheses about the interactions among different pathologic processes (denoted by biomarkers) and cognitive symptoms. We appreciate the concern that this biomarker-based research framework has the potential to be misused. Therefore, we emphasize, first, it is premature and inappropriate to use this research framework in general medical practice. Second, this research framework should not be used to restrict alternative approaches to hypothesis testing that do not use biomarkers. There will be situations where biomarkers are not available or requiring them would be counterproductive to the specific research goals (discussed in more detail later in the document). Thus, biomarker-based research should not be considered a template for all research into age-related cognitive impairment and dementia; rather, it should be applied when it is fit for the purpose of the specific research goals of a study. Importantly, this framework should be examined in diverse populations. Although it is possible that ?-amyloid plaques and neurofibrillary tau deposits are not causal in AD pathogenesis, it is these abnormal protein deposits that define AD as a unique neurodegenerative disease among different disorders that can lead to dementia. We envision that defining AD as a biological construct will enable a more accurate characterization and understanding of the sequence of events that lead to cognitive impairment that is associated with AD, as well as the multifactorial etiology of dementia. This approach also will enable a more precise approach to interventional trials where specific pathways can be targeted in the disease process and in the appropriate people.

Project description:BACKGROUND:According to the 2018 NIA-AA research framework, Alzheimer's disease (AD) is not defined by the clinical consequences of the disease, but by its underlying pathology, measured by biomarkers. Evidence of both amyloid-β (Aβ) and phosphorylated tau protein (p-tau) deposition-assessed interchangeably with amyloid-positron emission tomography (PET) and/or cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) analysis-is needed to diagnose AD in a living person. Our aim was to test the new NIA-AA research framework in a large cohort of cognitively impaired patients to evaluate correspondence between the clinical syndromes and the underlying pathologic process testified by biomarkers. METHODS:We retrospectively analysed 628 subjects referred to our centre in suspicion of dementia, who underwent CSF analysis, together with neuropsychological assessment and neuroimaging, and were diagnosed with different neurodegenerative dementias according to current criteria, or as cognitively unimpaired. Subjects were classified considering CSF biomarkers, and the prevalence of normal, AD-continuum and non-AD profiles in each clinical syndrome was calculated. The positivity threshold of each CSF biomarker was first assessed by receiver operating characteristic analysis, using Aβ-positive/negative status as determined by amyloid-PET visual reads. The agreement between CSF and amyloid-PET data was also evaluated. RESULTS:Among patients with a clinical diagnosis of AD, 94.1% were in the AD-continuum, whereas 5.5% were classified as non-AD and 0.4% were normal. The AD-continuum profile was found also in 26.2% of frontotemporal dementia, 48.6% of Lewy body dementia, 25% of atypical parkinsonism and 44.7% of vascular dementia. Biomarkers' profile did not differ in amnestic and not amnestic mild cognitive impairment. CSF Aβ levels and amyloid-PET tracer binding negatively correlated, and the concordance between the two Aβ biomarkers was 89%. CONCLUSIONS:The examination of the 2018 NIA-AA research framework in our clinical setting revealed a good, but incomplete, correspondence between the clinical syndromes and the underlying pathologic process measured by CSF biomarkers. The AD-continuum profile resulted to be a sensitive, but non-specific biomarker with regard to the clinical AD diagnosis. CSF and PET Aβ biomarkers were found to be not perfectly interchangeable to quantify the Aβ burden, possibly because they measure different aspects of AD pathology.

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:BackgroundDelirium is an extremely common hospital complication. No study to date has assessed whether a priori defined covariates; type of hospital setting and year of study publication, influence the relationship between delirium and mortality. This is also the first study to examine the longitudinal trend of delirium-associated mortality over recent decades, to analyse the trajectory of our efforts in combating this disease.MethodsMEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO, were searched from January 1981 to May 2018 for English-language primary articles. Rigorous title and abstract screen and full-text screen were conducted independently by two reviewers. This paper adhered to MOOSE guidelines. Data was extracted independently by one reviewer using standardised data-collection sheets, with a separate reviewer verifying for accuracy. The quality of included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. Unadjusted effect sizes and event counts were analysed with a random effects model in primary meta-analysis and meta-regression, whereas a mixed effect model was used in secondary sub-group analysis. Mortality data at longest follow-up and cumulative mortality (hospital mortality combined with mortality at longest follow-up) data were analysed.ResultsAs part of a larger project, 446 of 6790 articles were retrieved, including 71 studies that measured mortality. Our results demonstrate that elderly inpatients with delirium had significantly greater odds of mortality (OR 3.18 [95%CI: 2.73, 3.70]) compared to non-delirious controls. Patients with delirium in the ICU had the highest odds for mortality (OR: 7.09 [95%CI: 3.60, 14.0]); double the risk compared to the average. Curiously, despite advancements in delirium research, delirium associated in-hospital odds of mortality has not changed in 30 years.ConclusionThis is the largest meta-analysis to confirm the association between delirium and mortality, in older (age ≥ 65) hospital inpatients. The current meta-analysis highlights the significant odds of mortality after an episode of delirium, and these odds are much higher for ICU patients. However, in contrast to other medical conditions that have seen a decrease in associated mortality over the past few decades, delirium associated mortality remains unchanged. These findings underscore the urgent need for better delirium treatments. PROSPERO Registration Number: CRD42018098627, https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=98627.