Dataset Information

Olanzapine for the treatment of ICU delirium: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

As 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.

Objectives

In 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 methods

From 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.

Results

Data 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.

Conclusion

Compared 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.

Registration

Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; registration number CRD42021277232).

SUBMITTER: Liu SB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9944192 | biostudies-literature | 2023

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Olanzapine for the treatment of ICU delirium: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Liu Si Bo SB Liu Shan S Gao Kai K Wu Guo Zhi GZ Zu Guo G Jie Liu Jin J

Therapeutic advances in psychopharmacology 20230220

<h4>Background</h4>As 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.<h4>Objectives</h4>In this meta-analysis, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of olanzapine for delirium control in critically ill adults in the intensive care unit (ICU).<h4>Data sources and methods</h4>From inception to October 202 ...[more]

PMID: 36845642

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThere is a growing number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating interventions to prevent or treat delirium in the intensive care unit (ICU). Efforts to improve the conduct of delirium RCTs are underway, but none address issues related to statistical analysis. The purpose of this review is to evaluate heterogeneity in the design and analysis of delirium outcomes and advance methodological recommendations for delirium RCTs in the ICU.MethodsRelevant databases, including PubMed and Embase, were searched with no restrictions on language or publication date; the search was conducted on July 8, 2019. RCTs conducted on adult ICU patients with delirium as the primary outcome were included where trial results were available. Data on frequency and duration of delirium assessments, delirium outcome definitions, and statistical methods were independently extracted in duplicate. The review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020141204).ResultsAmong 65 eligible RCTs, 44 (68%) targeted the prevention of delirium. The duration of follow-up varied, with 31 (48%) RCTs having ≤7 days of follow-up, and only 24 (37%) conducting delirium assessments after ICU discharge. The incidence of delirium was the most common outcome (50 RCTs, 77%) for which 8 unique statistical methods were applied. The most common method, applied to 51 of 56 (91%) delirium incidence outcomes, was the two-sample test comparing the proportion of patients who ever experienced delirium. In the presence of censoring of patients at ICU discharge or death, this test may be misleading. The impact of censoring was also not considered in most analyses of the duration of delirium, as evaluated in 24 RCTs, with 21 (88%) delirium duration outcomes analyzed using a non-parametric test or two-sample t test. Composite outcomes (e.g., rank-based delirium- and coma-free days), used in 11 (17%) RCTs, seldom explicitly defined how ICU discharge, and death were incorporated into the definition and were analyzed using non-parametric tests (11 of 13 (85%) composite outcomes).ConclusionsTo improve delirium RCTs, outcomes should be explicitly defined. To account for censoring due to ICU discharge or death, survival analysis methods should be considered for delirium incidence and duration outcomes; non-parametric tests are recommended for rank-based delirium composite outcomes.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42020141204 . Registration date: 7/3/2019.

Project description:IntroductionDelirium is very common in patients admitted to intensive care unit (ICU), and may worsen survival in these patients. Several meta-analyses have evaluated the antidelirium effects of dexmedetomidine in ICU patients, but their findings were inconsistent. Recently, several large multicentre randomised clinical trials (RCTs) were published, but they have not yet to be included in any meta-analysis. We will conduct a meta-analysis adding these data to evaluate the effects of dexmedetomidine on delirium and mortality in ICU patients, aiming to terminate controversy and provide robust evidence for guiding clinical practice.Methods and analysisThe Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, Embase, ISI Web of Science will be searched from inception to 31 December 2018 for relevant RCTs. Two reviewers will independently screen the identified citations. After quality appraisal and data extraction of included studies, we will conduct meta-analyses for outcomes of interest, including delirium, mortality, length of ICU/hospital stay, time to extubation, ICU costs and adverse effects. The statistical heterogeneity among studies will be assessed by the χ2 test and quantified by the I2 statistics. We will undertake subgroup analyses to explore heterogeneity and sensitivity analyses to evaluate whether the results are robust. Potential publication bias will be assessed by funnel plot and Egger's test. At last, the quality of evidence of the main outcomes will be rated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system.Ethics and disseminationThe present study is a meta-analysis based on published studies, thus ethical approval is not needed. Our review will elucidate whether dexmedetomidine could decrease the incidence of delirium and improve survival in ICU patients. Our findings may help clinicians to choose optimal sedative agents for ICU patients. The results of this meta-analysis will be submitted to a peer reviewed journal for publication.Prospero registration numberCRD42018095358.

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.

Dataset Information

Olanzapine for the treatment of ICU delirium: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background

Objectives

Data sources and methods

Results

Conclusion

Registration

Publications

Olanzapine for the treatment of ICU delirium: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets