Haloperidol for the treatment of delirium in critically ill patients: A systematic review with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis

Haloperidol in treating delirium, reducing mortality, and preventing delirium occurrence: Bayesian and frequentist meta-analyses

BACKGROUND

Although haloperidol is commonly used to treat or prevent delirium in intensive care unit (ICU) patients, the evidence remains inconclusive. This study aimed to comprehensively evaluate the efficacy and safety of haloperidol for delirium treatment and prevention in ICU patients.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, the cochrane central register of controlled trials, EMBASE, ClinicalTrial.gov, and PubMed without language restrictions from database inception to June 27, 2024. We included double-blind randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on haloperidol versus placebo for treating and preventing delirium in adult ICU patients. In addition to frequentist analyses, Bayesian analysis was used to calculate the posterior probabilities of any benefit/harm and clinically important benefit/harm (CIB/CIH). The primary outcomes for delirium treatment were all-cause mortality and serious adverse events (SAEs). For delirium prevention, the primary outcomes included incident delirium, all-cause mortality, and SAEs. The secondary outcomes for efficacy were delirium-or coma-free days, ventilator-free days, length of stay in ICU, length of stay in hospital, and rescue benzodiazepine use. The secondary outcomes for safety were QTc prolongation and extrapyramidal syndrome.

RESULTS

We included seven RCTs on delirium treatment (n = 1767) and five on delirium prevention (n = 2509). The Bayesian analysis showed that, compared to placebo for delirium treatment, haloperidol had a 68% probability of achieving CIB (defined as risk difference [RD] < -0.02) in reducing all-cause mortality, a 2% probability of achieving CIH (RD > 0.02) in causing SAEs, and a 78% probability of achieving CIB (RD < -0.02) in reducing the need for rescue benzodiazepine use. The probabilities of haloperidol causing CIH (RD > 0.02) across all other safety outcomes were low (all < 50%). In frequentist analysis on delirium treatment, the pooled estimated RD for haloperidol compared to placebo was -0.05 (-0.09, -0.00; I2 = 0%) for rescue benzodiazepine use. In Bayesian analysis on delirium prevention, haloperidol had a 12% probability of achieving CIB in all-cause mortality, a 34% probability of achieving CIB in delirium incidence, and a 0% probability of achieving CIB in SAEs. Importantly, haloperidol had a 65% probability of causing CIH (risk ratio > 1.1) for QTc prolongation, while the posterior probabilities of achieving CIB across all efficacy outcomes were low (all < 50%). In frequentist analysis on delirium prevention, all primary and secondary outcomes were not statistically significant in frequentist analysis.

CONCLUSION

Our study supported the use of haloperidol for delirium treatment in adult ICU patients, but not for delirium prevention.

Antipsychotics in the Treatment of Delirium in Critically Ill Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVES

To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis assessing whether the use of antipsychotic medications in critically ill adult patients with delirium impacts patient-important outcomes.

DATA SOURCES

A medical librarian searched Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, APA PsycInfo, and Wiley's Cochrane Library as well as clinicaltrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform up to November 2023.

STUDY SELECTION

Independently and in duplicate, reviewers screened abstracts and titles for eligibility, then full text of qualifying studies. We included parallel-group randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that included critically ill adult patients with delirium. The intervention group was required to receive antipsychotic medications at any dose, whereas the control group received usual care or placebo.

DATA EXTRACTION

Reviewers extracted data independently and in duplicate using a piloted abstraction form. Statistical analyses were conducted using RevMan software (version 5.4).

DATA SYNTHESIS

Five RCTs ( n = 1750) met eligibility criteria. The use of antipsychotic medications compared with placebo did not increase the number of delirium- or coma-free days (mean difference 0.90 d; 95% CI, -0.32 to 2.12; moderate certainty), nor did it result in a difference in mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU, or hospital length of stay. The use of antipsychotics did not result in an increased risk of adverse events (risk ratio 1.27; 95% CI, 0.71-2.30; high certainty). Subgroup analysis of typical versus atypical antipsychotics did not identify any subgroup effect for any outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, our systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrated with moderate certainty that there is no difference in delirium- or coma-free days when delirious critically ill adults are treated with antipsychotic medications. Further studies in the subset of patients with hyperactive delirium may be of benefit.

Long-term outcomes with haloperidol versus placebo in acutely admitted adult ICU patients with delirium

PURPOSE

We assessed long-term outcomes in acutely admitted adult patients with delirium treated in intensive care unit (ICU) with haloperidol versus placebo.

METHODS

We conducted pre-planned analyses of 1-year outcomes in the Agents Intervening against Delirium in the ICU (AID-ICU) trial, including mortality and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) assessed by Euroqol (EQ) 5-dimension 5-level questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) index values and EQ visual analogue scale (EQ VAS) (deceased patients were assigned the numeric value zero). Outcomes were analysed using logistic and linear regressions with bootstrapping and G-computation, all with adjustment for the stratification variables (site and delirium motor subtype) and multiple imputations for missing HRQoL values.

RESULTS

At 1-year follow-up, we obtained vital status for 96.2% and HRQoL data for 83.3% of the 1000 randomised patients. One-year mortality was 224/501 (44.7%) in the haloperidol group versus 251/486 (51.6%) in the placebo group, with an adjusted absolute risk difference of - 6.4%-points (95% confidence interval [CI] - 12.8%-points to - 0.2%-points; P = 0.045). These results were largely consistent across the secondary analyses. For HRQoL, the adjusted mean differences were 0.04 (95% CI - 0.03 to 0.11; P = 0.091) for EQ-5D-5L-5L index values, and 3.3 (95% CI - 9.3 to 17.5; P = 0.142) for EQ VAS.

CONCLUSIONS

In acutely admitted adult ICU patients with delirium, haloperidol treatment reduced mortality at 1-year follow-up, but did not statistically significantly improve HRQoL.

Preventing and treating delirium in clinical settings for older adults

Delirium is a serious consequence of many acute or worsening chronic medical conditions, a side effect of medications, and a precipitant of worsening functional and cognitive status in older adults. It is a syndrome characterized by fluctuations in cognition and impaired attention that develops over a short period of time in response to an underlying medical condition, a substance (prescribed, over the counter, or recreational), or substance withdrawal and can be multi-factorial. We present a narrative review of the literature on nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic approaches to prevention and treatment of delirium with a focus on older adults as a vulnerable population. Older adult patients are most at risk due to decreasing physiologic reserves, with delirium rates of up to 80% in critical care settings. Presentation of delirium can be hyperactive, hypoactive, or mixed, making identification and study challenging as patients with hypoactive delirium are less likely to come to attention in an inpatient or long-term care setting. Studies of delirium focus on prevention and treatment with nonpharmacological or medication interventions, with the preponderance of evidence favoring multi-component nonpharmacological approaches to prevention as the most effective. Though use of antipsychotic medication in delirium is common, existing evidence does not support routine use, showing no clear benefit in clinically significant outcome measures and with evidence of harm in some studies. We therefore suggest that antipsychotics be used to treat agitation, psychosis, and distress associated with delirium at the lowest effective doses and shortest possible duration and not be considered a treatment of delirium itself. Future studies may clarify the use of other agents, such as melatonin and melatonin receptor agonists, alpha-2 receptor agonists, and anti-epileptics.

Orexin receptor antagonists versus antipsychotics for the management of delirium in intensive care unit patients with cardiovascular disease: A retrospective observational study

OBJECTIVE

Although antipsychotics are often used in the pharmacological treatment of delirium, recent reports suggest the efficacy of orexin receptor antagonists. This study investigated whether orexin receptor antagonists could be a possible treatment option for delirium.

METHOD

A nonblinded nonrandomized routine clinical treatment was performed. Patients treated in intensive care units (ICU) for cardiovascular disease and receiving psychiatric intervention were studied retrospectively. The scores from the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC) were compared between patients treated with orexin receptor antagonists and those treated with antipsychotics.

RESULTS

The mean (standard deviation) ICDSC scores were 4.5 (1.8) at day -1 and 2.6 (2.6) at day 7 for orexin receptor antagonist group (n = 25) and 4.6 (2.4) at day -1 and 4.1 (2.2) at day 7 for antipsychotic group (n = 28). The orexin receptor antagonist group showed significantly lower ICDSC scores than the antipsychotic group (p = 0.021).

CONCLUSION

While precise efficacy cannot be determined from our retrospective, observational, and uncontrolled pilot study, this analysis encourages a future double-blind randomized placebo-controlled trial of orexin-antagonists for delirium treatment.

Haloperidol for the treatment of delirium in critically ill patients: an updated systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

BACKGROUND

Haloperidol is frequently used in critically ill patients with delirium, but evidence for its effects has been sparse and inconclusive. By including recent trials, we updated a systematic review assessing effects of haloperidol on mortality and serious adverse events in critically ill patients with delirium.

METHODS

This is an updated systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomised clinical trials investigating haloperidol versus placebo or any comparator in critically ill patients with delirium. We adhered to the Cochrane handbook, the PRISMA guidelines and the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation statements. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and proportion of patients with one or more serious adverse events or reactions (SAEs/SARs). Secondary outcomes were days alive without delirium or coma, delirium severity, cognitive function and health-related quality of life.

RESULTS

We included 11 RCTs with 15 comparisons (n = 2200); five were placebo-controlled. The relative risk for mortality with haloperidol versus placebo was 0.89; 96.7% CI 0.77 to 1.03; I2 = 0% (moderate-certainty evidence) and for proportion of patients experiencing SAEs/SARs 0.94; 96.7% CI 0.81 to 1.10; I2 = 18% (low-certainty evidence). We found no difference in days alive without delirium or coma (moderate-certainty evidence). We found sparse data for other secondary outcomes and other comparators than placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

Haloperidol may reduce mortality and likely result in little to no change in the occurrence of SAEs/SARs compared with placebo in critically ill patients with delirium. However, the results were not statistically significant and more trial data are needed to provide higher certainty for the effects of haloperidol in these patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

CRD42017081133, date of registration 28 November 2017.

The efficacy and safety of haloperidol for the treatment of delirium in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Purpose

Delirium is common during critical illness and is associated with poor outcomes. Therefore, we conducted this meta-analysis to investigate the efficacy and safety of haloperidol for the treatment of delirium in critically ill patients.

Methods

Randomized controlled trials enrolling critically ill adult patients to compare haloperidol with placebo were searched from inception through to February 20th, 2023. The primary outcome were delirium-free days and overall mortality, secondary outcomes were length of intensive care unit stay, length of hospital stay, and adverse events.

Results

Nine trials were included in our meta-analysis, with a total of 3,916 critically ill patients. Overall, the pooled analyses showed no significant difference between critically ill patients treated with haloperidol and placebo for the delirium-free days (MD -0.01, 95%CI -0.36 to 0.34, p = 0.95, I2 = 30%), overall mortality (OR 0.89, 95%CI 0.76 to 1.04, p = 0.14, I2 = 0%), length of intensive care unit stay (MD -0.06, 95%CI -0.16 to 0.03, p = 0.19, I2 = 0%), length of hospital stay (MD -0.06, 95%CI -0.61 to 0.49, p = 0.83, I2 = 0%), and adverse events (OR 0.90, 95%CI 0.60 to 1.37, p = 0.63, I2 = 0%).

Conclusion

Among critically ill patients, the use of haloperidol as compared to placebo has no significant effect on delirium-free days, overall mortality, length of intensive care unit and/or hospital stay. Moreover, the use of haloperidol did not increase the risk of adverse events.

Delirium in ventilated patients receiving fentanyl and morphine for Analgosedation: Findings from the ANALGESIC trial

PURPOSE

The differential effect of fentanyl vs. morphine analgosedation on the development of hospital inpatient delirium in patients receiving mechanical ventilation is unknown. We aimed to compare the incidence of coding for delirium and antipsychotic medication use in patients treated with fentanyl vs. morphine in the ANALGESIC trial.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We obtained data from a cluster randomized, cluster crossover trial of fentanyl vs. morphine for analgosedation on antipsychotic use and coding diagnosis of delirium and compared these outcomes according to treatment allocation. We assessed the relationship between opioid choice and dose, hospital inpatient delirium, and outcomes.

RESULTS

Among 681 patients enrolled in the ANALGESIC trial, 160/344 (46.5%) in the fentanyl group vs. 132/337 (39.1%) in the morphine group (absolute difference 7.34% [95% CI -0.9 to 14.78]; RR: 1.19 [95%CI 1.00 to 1.41]; p = 0.053) developed hospital inpatient delirium. Antipsychotic use was linearly related to opioid dose. Antipsychotic use was not associated with increased mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Fentanyl is associated with a higher incidence of hospital inpatient delirium when used for analgosedation compared with morphine, and the dose of opioid is linearly related to the need for antipsychotic medication administration. The role of analgosedation in promoting delirium requires further investigation.

Haloperidol vs. placebo for the treatment of delirium in ICU patients: a pre-planned, secondary Bayesian analysis of the AID–ICU trial

PURPOSE

The AID-ICU trial was a randomised, blinded, placebo-controlled trial investigating effects of haloperidol versus placebo in acutely admitted, adult patients admitted in intensive care unit (ICU) with delirium. This pre-planned Bayesian analysis facilitates probabilistic interpretation of the AID-ICU trial results.

METHODS

We used adjusted Bayesian linear and logistic regression models with weakly informative priors to analyse all primary and secondary outcomes reported up to day 90, and with sensitivity analyses using other priors. The probabilities for any benefit/harm, clinically important benefit/harm, and no clinically important differences with haloperidol treatment according to pre-defined thresholds are presented for all outcomes.

RESULTS

The mean difference for days alive and out of hospital to day 90 (primary outcome) was 2.9 days (95% credible interval (CrI) - 1.1 to 6.9) with probabilities of 92% for any benefit and 82% for clinically important benefit. The risk difference for mortality was - 6.8 percentage points (95% CrI - 12.8 to - 0.8) with probabilities of 99% for any benefit and 94% for clinically important benefit. The adjusted risk difference for serious adverse reactions was 0.3 percentage points (95% CrI - 1.3 to 1.9) with 98% probability of no clinically important difference. Results were consistent across sensitivity analyses using different priors, with more than 83% probability of benefit and less than 17% probability of harm with haloperidol treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

We found high probabilities of benefits and low probabilities of harm with haloperidol treatment compared with placebo in acutely admitted, adult ICU patients with delirium for the primary and most secondary outcomes.

Haloperidol for the Treatment of Delirium in ICU Patients

BACKGROUND

Haloperidol is frequently used to treat delirium in patients in the intensive care unit (ICU), but evidence of its effect is limited.

METHODS

In this multicenter, blinded, placebo-controlled trial, we randomly assigned adult patients with delirium who had been admitted to the ICU for an acute condition to receive intravenous haloperidol (2.5 mg 3 times daily plus 2.5 mg as needed up to a total maximum daily dose of 20 mg) or placebo. Haloperidol or placebo was administered in the ICU for as long as delirium continued and as needed for recurrences. The primary outcome was the number of days alive and out of the hospital at 90 days after randomization.

RESULTS

A total of 1000 patients underwent randomization; 510 were assigned to the haloperidol group and 490 to the placebo group. Among these patients, 987 (98.7%) were included in the final analyses (501 in the haloperidol group and 486 in the placebo group). Primary outcome data were available for 963 patients (97.6%). At 90 days, the mean number of days alive and out of the hospital was 35.8 (95% confidence interval [CI], 32.9 to 38.6) in the haloperidol group and 32.9 (95% CI, 29.9 to 35.8) in the placebo group, with an adjusted mean difference of 2.9 days (95% CI, -1.2 to 7.0) (P = 0.22). Mortality at 90 days was 36.3% in the haloperidol group and 43.3% in the placebo group (adjusted absolute difference, -6.9 percentage points [95% CI, -13.0 to -0.6]). Serious adverse reactions occurred in 11 patients in the haloperidol group and in 9 patients in the placebo group.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients in the ICU with delirium, treatment with haloperidol did not lead to a significantly greater number of days alive and out of the hospital at 90 days than placebo. (Funded by Innovation Fund Denmark and others; AID-ICU ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03392376; EudraCT number, 2017-003829-15.).

Agents intervening against delirium in the intensive care unit trial-Protocol for a secondary Bayesian analysis

BACKGROUND

Delirium is highly prevalent in the intensive care unit (ICU) and is associated with high morbidity and mortality. The antipsychotic haloperidol is the most frequently used agent to treat delirium although this is not supported by solid evidence. The agents intervening against delirium in the intensive care unit (AID-ICU) trial investigates the effects of haloperidol versus placebo for the treatment of delirium in adult ICU patients.

METHODS

This protocol describes the secondary, pre-planned Bayesian analyses of the primary and secondary outcomes up to day 90 of the AID-ICU trial. We will use Bayesian linear regression models for all count outcomes and Bayesian logistic regression models for all dichotomous outcomes. We will adjust for stratification variables (site and delirium subtype) and use weakly informative priors supplemented with sensitivity analyses using sceptical priors. We will present results as absolute differences (mean differences and risk differences) and relative differences (ratios of means and relative risks). Posteriors will be summarised using median values as point estimates and percentile-based 95% credibility intervals. Probabilities of any benefit/harm, clinically important benefit/harm and clinically unimportant differences will be presented for all outcomes.

DISCUSSION

The results of this secondary, pre-planned Bayesian analysis will complement the primary frequentist analysis of the AID-ICU trial and facilitate a nuanced and probabilistic interpretation of the trial results.

Delirium in Intensive Care

Purpose of Review

Delirium in the intensive care unit (ICU) has become increasingly acknowledged as a significant problem for critically ill patients affecting both the actual course of illness as well as outcomes. In this review, we focus on the current evidence and the gaps in knowledge.

Recent Findings

This review highlights several areas in which the evidence is weak and further research is needed in both pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment. A better understanding of subtypes and their different response to therapy is needed and further studies in aetiology are warranted. Larger studies are needed to explore risk factors for developing delirium and for examining long-term consequences. Finally, a stronger focus on experienced delirium and considering the perspectives of both patients and their families is encouraged.

Summary

With the growing number of studies and a better framework for research leading to stronger evidence, the outcomes for patients suffering from delirium will most definitely improve in the years to come.

A Mechanistic Investigation on the Anticancer Properties of SYA013, a Homopiperazine Analogue of Haloperidol with Activity against Triple Negative Breast Cancer Cells

Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is one of the most malignant cancers associated with early metastasis, poor clinical prognosis, and high recurrence rate. TNBC is a distinct subtype of breast cancer that lacks estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and human epidermal growth factor 2 receptors (HER2). Development of effective TNBC therapies has been limited partially due to the lack of specific molecular targets and chemotherapy involving different cytotoxic drugs suffers from significant side effects and drug-resistance development. Therefore, there is an unmet need for the development of novel and efficient therapeutic drugs with reduced side effects to treat TNBC. We have previously reported that certain analogues of haloperidol (a typical antipsychotic drug used for treating mental/mood disorders such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder) suppress the viability of a variety of solid tumor cell lines, and we have identified 4-(4-(4-chlorophenyl)-1,4-diazepan-1-yl)-1-(4-fluoro-phenyl)butan-1-one (SYA013) with such antiproliferative properties. Interestingly, unlike haloperidol, SYA013 shows moderate selectivity toward σ2 receptors. In this study, we explored the potential of SYA013 in modulating the important biological events associated with cell survival and progression as well as the mechanistic aspects of apoptosis in a representative TNBC cell line (MDA-MB-231). Our results indicate that SYA013 inhibits the proliferation of MDA-MB-231 cells in a concentration-dependent manner and suppresses cell migration and invasion. Apoptotic studies were also conducted in MDA-MB-468 cells (cells derived from a 51-year old Black female with metastatic adenocarcinoma of the breast.). In addition, we have demonstrated that SYA013 induces MDA-MB-231 cell death through the intrinsic apoptotic pathway and may suppress tumor progression and metastasis. Taken together, our study presents a mechanistic pathway of the anticancer properties of SYA013 against TNBC cell lines and suggests a potential for exploring SYA013 as a lead agent for development against TNBC.

Role of dexmedetomidine in the treatment of delirium in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Although dexmedetomidine has been found to prevent delirium in critically ill patients, it is uncertain whether it can treat acute delirium. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine in treating delirium, by analyzing and reviewing data from previous studies.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Clinical trial data on the use of dexmedetomidine in adult critically ill patients with delirium were retrieved from four databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library) and clinicaltrials.gov, from inception to May, 2020.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Ten randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and five non-RCTs met the selection criteria and data were obtained from 1017 patients. In one study, dexmedetomidine reduced the duration of delirium to a greater extent than did the placebo. In six studies, it was associated with a lower point-prevalence of delirium after treatment (OR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.20, 0.76; P=0.006) and a shorter time to resolution of delirium (hours; MD, -23.25; 95% CI, -45.28, -1.21; P=0.04) compared with those of other drugs. In four RCTs, it was superior to haloperidol in reducing the time to resolution of delirium (hours; MD, -30.17; P=0.01). However, in seven studies, it showed a higher risk of bradycardia (OR, 3.48; 95% CI, 1.47, 8.23; P=0.004) than that of comparators.

CONCLUSIONS

Dexmedetomidine promotes the resolution of delirium but also increases the incidence of bradycardia during treatment. Furthermore, it may be superior to haloperidol in treating delirium, although more studies are needed to confirm this.

Mortality and HRQoL in ICU patients with delirium: Protocol for 1-year follow-up of AID-ICU trial

BACKGROUND

Intensive care unit (ICU)-acquired delirium is frequent and associated with poor short- and long-term outcomes for patients in ICUs. It therefore constitutes a major healthcare problem. Despite limited evidence, haloperidol is the most frequently used pharmacological intervention against ICU-acquired delirium. Agents intervening against Delirium in the ICU (AID-ICU) is an international, multicentre, randomised, blinded, placebo-controlled trial investigates benefits and harms of treatment with haloperidol in patients with ICU-acquired delirium. The current pre-planned one-year follow-up study of the AID-ICU trial population aims to explore the effects of haloperidol on one-year mortality and health related quality of life (HRQoL).

METHODS

The AID-ICU trial will include 1000 participants. One-year mortality will be obtained from the trial sites; we will validate the vital status of Danish participants using the Danish National Health Data Registers. Mortality will be analysed by Cox-regression and visualized by Kaplan-Meier curves tested for significance using the log-rank test. We will obtain HRQoL data using the EQ-5D instrument. HRQoL analysis will be performed using a general linear model adjusted for stratification variables. Deceased participants will be designated the worst possible value.

RESULTS

We expect to publish results of this study in 2022.

CONCLUSION

We expect that this one-year follow-up study of participants with ICU-acquired delirium allocated to haloperidol vs. placebo will provide important information on the long-term consequences of delirium including the effects of haloperidol. We expect that our results will improve the care of this vulnerable patient group.

The Agents Intervening against Delirium in the Intensive Care Unit Trial (AID-ICU trial): A detailed statistical analysis plan

BACKGROUND

The AID-ICU trial aims to assess the benefits and harms of haloperidol for the treatment of delirium in acutely admitted, adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients. This paper describes the detailed statistical analysis plan for the primary publication of results from the AID-ICU trial.

METHODS

The AID-ICU trial is an investigator-initiated, pragmatic, international, multicentre, randomized, blinded, parallel-group trial allocating 1000 adult ICU patients with manifest delirium 1:1 to haloperidol or placebo. The primary outcome measure is days alive and out of hospital within 90 days post-randomization. Secondary outcome measures are days alive without delirium or coma, serious adverse reactions (SARs) to haloperidol, use of escape medicine, days alive without mechanical ventilation, and mortality, health-related quality-of-life measures and cognitive function 1-year post-randomization. Statistical analysis will be conducted in accordance with the current pre-specified statistical analysis plan. One formal interim analysis will be performed. The primary outcome will be adjusted for stratification variables (site and delirium motor subtype) and compared between treatment groups using a likelihood ratio test described by Jensen et al A secondary analysis will be conducted with additional adjustment of the primary outcome for prognostic variables at baseline. The primary conclusion of the trial will be based on the intention-to-treat analysis of the primary outcome adjusted for stratification variables.

CONCLUSION

The AID-ICU trial will provide important, high-quality data on the benefits and harms of treatment with haloperidol in acutely admitted, adult patients with manifest delirium in the ICU.