11
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Antipsychotics for treatment of delirium in hospitalised non-ICU patients

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Guidelines suggest limited and cautious use of antipsychotics for treatment of delirium where nonpharmacological interventions have failed and symptoms remain distressing or dangerous, or both. It is unclear how well these recommendations are supported by current evidence. Our primary objective was to assess the efficacy of antipsychotics versus nonantipsychotics or placebo on the duration of delirium in hospitalised adults. Our secondary objectives were to compare the efficacy of: 1) antipsychotics versus nonantipsychotics or placebo on delirium severity and resolution, mortality, hospital length of stay, discharge disposition, health‐related quality of life, and adverse effects; and 2) atypical vs. typical antipsychotics for reducing delirium duration, severity, and resolution, hospital mortality and length of stay, discharge disposition, health‐related quality of life, and adverse effects. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane EBM Reviews, CINAHL, Thomson Reuters Web of Science and the Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) from their respective inception dates until July 2017. We also searched the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), Health Technology Assessment Database, Web of Science ISI Proceedings, and other grey literature. We included randomised and quasi‐randomised trials comparing 1) antipsychotics to nonantipsychotics or placebo and 2) typical to atypical antipsychotics for the treatment of delirium in adult hospitalised (but not critically ill) patients. We examined titles and abstracts of identified studies to determine eligibility. We extracted data independently in duplicate. Disagreements were settled by further discussion and consensus. We used risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) as a measure of treatment effect for dichotomous outcomes, and between‐group standardised mean differences (SMD) with 95% CI for continuous outcomes. We included nine trials that recruited 727 participants. Four of the nine trials included a comparison of an antipsychotic to a nonantipsychotic drug or placebo and seven included a comparison of a typical to an atypical antipsychotic. The study populations included hospitalised medical, surgical, and palliative patients. No trial reported on duration of delirium. Antipsychotic treatment did not reduce delirium severity compared to nonantipsychotic drugs (standard mean difference (SMD) ‐1.08, 95% CI ‐2.55 to 0.39; four studies; 494 participants; very low‐quality evidence); nor was there a difference between typical and atypical antipsychotics (SMD ‐0.17, 95% CI ‐0.37 to 0.02; seven studies; 542 participants; low‐quality evidence). There was no evidence antipsychotics resolved delirium symptoms compared to nonantipsychotic drug regimens (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.98; three studies; 247 participants; very low‐quality evidence); nor was there a difference between typical and atypical antipsychotics (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.52; five studies; 349 participants; low‐quality evidence). The pooled results indicated that antipsychotics did not alter mortality compared to nonantipsychotic regimens (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.73 to 2.27; three studies; 319 participants; low‐quality evidence) nor was there a difference between typical and atypical antipsychotics (RR 1.71, 95% CI 0.82 to 3.35; four studies; 342 participants; low‐quality evidence). No trial reported on hospital length of stay, hospital discharge disposition, or health‐related quality of life. Adverse event reporting was limited and measured with inconsistent methods; in those reporting events, the number of events were low. No trial reported on physical restraint use, long‐term cognitive outcomes, cerebrovascular events, or QTc prolongation (i.e. increased time in the heart's electrical cycle). Only one trial reported on arrhythmias and seizures, with no difference between typical or atypical antipsychotics. We found antipsychotics did not have a higher risk of extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS) compared to nonantipsychotic drugs (RR 1.70, 95% CI 0.04 to 65.57; three studies; 247 participants; very‐low quality evidence); pooled results showed no increased risk of EPS with typical antipsychotics compared to atypical antipsychotics (RR 12.16, 95% CI 0.55 to 269.52; two studies; 198 participants; very low‐quality evidence). There were no reported data to determine whether antipsychotics altered the duration of delirium, length of hospital stay, discharge disposition, or health‐related quality of life as studies did not report on these outcomes. From the poor quality data available, we found antipsychotics did not reduce delirium severity, resolve symptoms, or alter mortality. Adverse effects were poorly or rarely reported in the trials. Extrapyramidal symptoms were not more frequent with antipsychotics compared to nonantipsychotic drug regimens, and no different for typical compared to atypical antipsychotics. Review question We reviewed the evidence for the effectiveness and safety of antipsychotics for treatment of delirium in hospitalised patients, not including those in intensive care units (specialised wards for caring for very sick patients). Background Delirium is a public health concern as it is a new onset confused state that increases the amount of time patients spend in the hospital, as well as their chance of dying. Guidelines recommendations include reversal of any potential medical or drug triggers that may be contributing to delirium. If delirium symptoms persist and are distressing or dangerous, an antipsychotic drug may be prescribed for a short time. Antipsychotic drugs, also known as tranquillizers, are mainly used to treat psychosis (e.g. hallucinations). There are two types of antipsychotics: first generation or typical antipsychotics (e.g. haloperidol) and second generation or atypical antipsychotics (e.g. quetiapine). Both groups of antipsychotics block the brain's dopamine receptor pathways but atypical antipsychotics also act on serotonin receptors. Atypical antipsychotics are also noted to be effective for treating both the positive symptoms (e.g. hallucinations) as well as the negative symptoms (e.g. emotional withdrawal) of psychosis. We need to understand if antipsychotics shorten the course of delirium or reduce symptoms or if they cause more harm. Therefore, we updated the existing Cochrane Review from 2007. Study characteristics We found nine studies with 727 participants testing antipsychotics for delirium treatment; four trials compared an antipsychotic to another drug class or placebo and seven of the nine trials compared a typical antipsychotic to an atypical antipsychotic. Key findings We found no evidence to support or refute the suggestion that antipsychotics shorten the course of delirium in hospitalised patients. Based on the available studies, antipsychotics do not reduce the severity of delirium or resolve symptoms compared to nonantipsychotic drugs or placebo or lower the risk of dying. We found no evidence to support or refute the suggestion that antipsychotics shorten hospital length of stay or improve health‐related quality of life. Side effects were rarely reported in the studies. Quality of the Evidence It is important to note many clinically relevant outcomes were not reported in the studies and the overall quality of the available evidence was poor. External funding Canadian Fraility Network (previously Technology Evaluation in the Elderly Network [TVN]) (www.cfn‐nce.ca/), Canada

          Related collections

          Most cited references8

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Efficacy and safety of quetiapine in critically ill patients with delirium: a prospective, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled pilot study.

          To compare the efficacy and safety of scheduled quetiapine to placebo for the treatment of delirium in critically ill patients requiring as-needed haloperidol. Prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Three academic medical centers. Thirty-six adult intensive care unit patients with delirium (Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist score > or = 4), tolerating enteral nutrition, and without a complicating neurologic condition. Patients were randomized to receive quetiapine 50 mg every 12 hrs or placebo. Quetiapine was increased every 24 hrs (50 to 100 to 150 to 200 mg every 12 hrs) if more than one dose of haloperidol was given in the previous 24 hrs. Study drug was continued until the intensive care unit team discontinued it because of delirium resolution, therapy > or = 10 days, or intensive care unit discharge. Baseline characteristics were similar between the quetiapine (n = 18) and placebo (n = 18) groups. Quetiapine was associated with a shorter time to first resolution of delirium [1.0 (interquartile range [IQR], 0.5-3.0) vs. 4.5 days (IQR, 2.0-7.0; p =.001)], a reduced duration of delirium [36 (IQR, 12-87) vs. 120 hrs (IQR, 60-195; p =.006)], and less agitation (Sedation-Agitation Scale score > or = 5) [6 (IQR, 0-38) vs. 36 hrs (IQR, 11-66; p =.02)]. Whereas mortality (11% quetiapine vs. 17%) and intensive care unit length of stay (16 quetiapine vs. 16 days) were similar, subjects treated with quetiapine were more likely to be discharged home or to rehabilitation (89% quetiapine vs. 56%; p =.06). Subjects treated with quetiapine required fewer days of as-needed haloperidol [3 [(IQR, 2-4)] vs. 4 days (IQR, 3-8; p = .05)]. Whereas the incidence of QTc prolongation and extrapyramidal symptoms was similar between groups, more somnolence was observed with quetiapine (22% vs. 11%; p = .66). Quetiapine added to as-needed haloperidol results in faster delirium resolution, less agitation, and a greater rate of transfer to home or rehabilitation. Future studies should evaluate the effect of quetiapine on mortality, resource utilization, post-intensive care unit cognition, and dependency after discharge in a broader group of patients.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Delirium epidemiology in critical care (DECCA): an international study

            Introduction Delirium is a frequent source of morbidity in intensive care units (ICUs). Most data on its epidemiology is from single-center studies. Our aim was to conduct a multicenter study to evaluate the epidemiology of delirium in the ICU. Methods A 1-day point-prevalence study was undertaken in 104 ICUs from 11 countries in South and North America and Spain. Results In total, 975 patients were screened, and 497 fulfilled inclusion criteria and were enrolled (median age, 62 years; 52.5% men; 16.7% and 19.9% for ICU and hospital mortality); 64% were admitted to the ICU because of medical causes, and sepsis was the main diagnosis (n = 76; 15.3%). In total, 265 patients were sedated with the Richmond agitation and sedation scale (RASS) deeper than -3, and only 232 (46.6%) patients could be evaluated with the confusion-assessment method for the ICU. The prevalence of delirium was 32.3%. Compared with patients without delirium, those with the diagnosis of delirium had a greater severity of illness at admission, demonstrated by higher sequential organ-failure assessment (SOFA (P = 0.004)) and simplified acute physiology score 3 (SAPS3) scores (P < 0.0001). Delirium was associated with increased ICU (20% versus 5.7%; P = 0.002) and hospital mortality (24 versus 8.3%; P = 0.0017), and longer ICU (P < 0.0001) and hospital length of stay (LOS) (22 (11 to 40) versus 7 (4 to 18) days; P < 0.0001). Previous use of midazolam (P = 0.009) was more frequent in patients with delirium. On multivariate analysis, delirium was independently associated with increased ICU mortality (OR = 3.14 (1.26 to 7.86); CI, 95%) and hospital mortality (OR = 2.5 (1.1 to 5.7); CI, 95%). Conclusions In this 1-day international study, delirium was frequent and associated with increased mortality and ICU LOS. The main modifiable risk factors associated with the diagnosis of delirium were the use of invasive devices and sedatives (midazolam).
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Effect of intravenous haloperidol on the duration of delirium and coma in critically ill patients (Hope-ICU): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

              Delirium is frequently diagnosed in critically ill patients and is associated with poor clinical outcomes. Haloperidol is the most commonly used drug for delirium despite little evidence of its effectiveness. The aim of this study was to establish whether early treatment with haloperidol would decrease the time that survivors of critical illness spent in delirium or coma.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
                Wiley
                14651858
                June 18 2018
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Mount Sinai Hospital, Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Toronto; Department of Pharmacy; 600 University Avenue, Room 18-377 Toronto ON Canada M5G 1X5
                [2 ]Mount Sinai Hospital, University of Toronto; Interdepartmental Division of Critical Care Medicine; 600 University Ave, Rm 1504 Toronto ON Canada M5G 1X5
                [3 ]Université de Montréal; Faculty of Pharmacy; C.P. 6128, succ Centre-Ville Montreal QC Canada H3C 3J7
                [4 ]On Lok; 1333 Bush Street San Francisco California USA 94109
                [5 ]Hull York Medical School, University of York; Department of Health Sciences; Heslington York North Yorkshire UK Y010 5DD
                [6 ]Ottawa Hospital Research Institute; Knowledge Synthesis Group; 501 Smyth Road Ottawa ON Canada K1H 8L6
                [7 ]Ottawa Hospital Research Institute; Clinical Epidemiology Program; 501 Smyth Road Ottawa ON Canada K1H 8L6
                [8 ]Mount Sinai Hospital; Medicine; 600 University Street Room 433 Toronto ON Canada M5G 1X5
                [9 ]Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre and Sunnybrook Research Institute; Department of Critical Care Medicine; Toronto Canada
                Article
                10.1002/14651858.CD005594.pub3
                6513380
                29920656
                0a61021d-1d26-4cff-9fe1-42fa7c1bb3c3
                © 2018
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article