An open trial of olanzapine for the treatment of delirium in hospitalized cancer patients

Concomitant use of hydroxyzine and haloperidol did not worsen delirium in patients with cancer: A multicenter, retrospective, observational study

OBJECTIVES

There is concern that hydroxyzine exacerbates delirium, but a recent preliminary study suggested that the combination of haloperidol and hydroxyzine was effective against delirium. This study examined whether the concomitant use of hydroxyzine and haloperidol worsened delirium in patients with cancer.

METHODS

This retrospective, observational study was conducted at 2 general hospitals in Japan. The medical records of patients with cancer who received haloperidol for delirium from July to December 2020 were reviewed. The treatments for delirium included haloperidol alone or haloperidol combined with hydroxyzine. The primary outcome was the duration from the first day of haloperidol administration to the resolution of delirium, defined as its absence for 2 consecutive days. The time to delirium resolution was analyzed to compare the haloperidol group and hydroxyzine combination group using the log-rank test with the Kaplan-Meier method. Secondary outcomes were (1) the total dose of antipsychotic medications, including those other than haloperidol (measured in chlorpromazine-equivalent doses), and (2) the frequencies of detrimental incidents during delirium, specifically falls and self-removal of drip infusion lines. The unpaired t-test and Fisher's exact test were used to analyze secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

Of 497 patients who received haloperidol, 118 (23.7%) also received hydroxyzine. No significant difference in time to delirium resolution was found between the haloperidol group and the hydroxyzine combination group (log-rank test, P = 0.631). No significant difference between groups was found in either chlorpromazine-equivalent doses or the frequency of detrimental incidents.

SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS

This study showed that the concomitant use of hydroxyzine and haloperidol did not worsen delirium in patients with cancer.

Effectiveness of antipsychotics for managing agitated delirium in patients with advanced cancer: a secondary analysis of a multicenter prospective observational study in Japan (Phase-R)

PURPOSE

Delirium is a common and serious comorbidity in patients with advanced cancer, necessitating effective management. Nonetheless, effective drugs for managing agitated delirium in patients with advanced cancer remain unclear in real-world settings. Thus, the present study aimed to explore an effective pharmacotherapy for this condition.

METHODS

We conducted a secondary analysis of a multicenter prospective observational study in Japan. The analysis included patients with advanced cancer who presented with agitated delirium and received pharmacotherapy. Agitation was defined as a score of the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale for palliative care (RASS-PAL) of ≥ 1. The outcome was defined as -2 ≤ RASS-PAL ≤ 0 at 72 h after the initiation of pharmacotherapy. Multiple propensity scores were quantified using a multinomial logistic regression model, and adjusted odds ratios (ORs) were calculated for haloperidol, chlorpromazine, olanzapine, quetiapine, and risperidone.

RESULTS

The analysis included 271 patients with agitated delirium, and 87 (32%) showed -2 ≤ RASS-PAL ≤ 0 on day 3. The propensity score-adjusted OR of olanzapine was statistically significant (OR, 2.91; 95% confidence interval, 1.12 to 7.80; P = 0.030).

CONCLUSIONS

The findings suggest that olanzapine may effectively improve delirium agitation in patients with advanced cancer.

Effects of Opioids, Steroids, Benzodiazepines, Anticholinergics, and Antihistamines on the Efficacy of Antipsychotics for Treating Delirium in End-of-Life Adult Patients Undergoing Palliative Care

The purpose of the study was to determine the effect of combination therapy involving opioids, steroids, benzodiazepines, anticholinergics, and antihistamines on antipsychotics efficacy for delirium. The study included adult inpatients receiving end-of-life palliative care and diagnosed with hyperactive delirium. Changes in delirium symptoms were assessed using the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC). A retrospective analysis was conducted on 97 patients with ICDSC scores of ≥4, comparing the scores before and after antipsychotic administration. A mean score <4 sustained for 3 days after antipsychotics administration was considered effective. The mean days with ICDSC <4 within a 3-day period were evaluated as well. The efficacy of antipsychotics was compared between cases with and without the use of opioids, steroids, benzodiazepines, anticholinergics, and antihistamines. The results revealed no significant differences in the efficacy of antipsychotics for delirium when used in conjunction with opioids (odds ratio 0.614, 95% CI [0.179-2.105]), benzodiazepines (0.387, [0.108-1.390]), steroids (1.258, [0.276-5.746]), or anticholinergics (2.085, [0. 148-29.458]). Additionally, no significant differences were observed in the mean days with ICDSC <4 within 3-day period. Although opioids, benzodiazepines, steroids, anticholinergics, and antihistamines are recognized as delirium risk factors, their use for symptom relief in patients with delirium may not affect antipsychotic efficacy.

A revision of JPOS/JASCC clinical guidelines for delirium in adult cancer patients: a summary of recommendation statements

OBJECTIVE

The Japanese Psycho-Oncology Society and the Japanese Association of Supportive Care in Cancer have recently revised the clinical practice guidelines for delirium in adult cancer patients. This article reports the process of developing the revised guidelines and summarizes the recommendations made.

METHODS

The guidelines were developed in accordance with the Medical Information Network Distribution Service creation procedures. The guideline development group, consisting of multi-disciplinary members, created three new clinical questions: non-pharmacological intervention and antipsychotics for the prevention of delirium and trazodone for the management of delirium. In addition, systematic reviews of nine existing clinical questions have been updated. Two independent reviewers reviewed the proposed articles. The certainty of evidence and the strength of the recommendations were graded using the grading system developed by the Medical Information Network Distribution Service, following the concept of The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system. The modified Delphi method was used to validate the recommended statements.

RESULTS

This article provides a compendium of the recommendations along with their rationales, as well as a short summary.

CONCLUSIONS

These revised guidelines will be useful for the prevention, assessment and management of delirium in adult cancer patients in Japan.

A retrospective comparison of haloperidol and hydroxyzine combination therapy with haloperidol alone in the treatment of overactive delirium

BACKGROUND

For the treatment of delirium, antipsychotics such as haloperidol are used as standard treatments. However, haloperidol has a little sedative effect and may not be sufficiently effective in controlling overactive delirium. Hydroxyzine, an antihistamine, may be used in combination with haloperidol to supplement its sedative effect. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of haloperidol alone or in combination with hydroxyzine on the improvement of overactive delirium retrospectively.

METHOD

Delirium was assessed from medical records using the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC). The number of patients and days with an ICDSC score of < 4, indicating an absence of delirium after haloperidol alone or haloperidol and hydroxyzine was surveyed for 6 days.

RESULTS

A total of 157 patients were diagnosed with delirium from April 2019 to July 2021, of which 18 patients received haloperidol alone, and 21 patients received the combination of haloperidol and hydroxyzine for overactive delirium. The number of patients with a mean ICDSC score of < 4 on days 1-6 was two patients (11%) in the haloperidol groups and two patients (10%) in the combination of haloperidol and hydroxyzine group (P = 0.999). The days within < 4 of the ICDSC score on days 1-6 were 0.8 (1.3) and 0.8 (1.5), respectively (P = 0.848).

CONCLUSION

Haloperidol alone and haloperidol plus hydroxyzine are both effective in the treatment of overactive delirium. However, the concomitant use of hydroxyzine with haloperidol may not improve the efficacy of treatment of overactive delirium compared to haloperidol alone.

A Case of Refractory Delirium Managed by a Multimodal Approach Using Atypical Antipsychotics, Antidepressants, and Benzodiazepines in an ICU Setting

Delirium is an acute confusional state, most commonly observed in elderly patients admitted to the critical care unit. In most cases, early recognition, avoiding triggering factors and conservative measures are adequate for the management, but sometimes symptoms persist despite adequate medical care, which goes in the favor of refractory delirium. Refractory delirium has no clear-cut definition but it is discussed in some of the case reports and literature as the presence of symptoms despite adequate treatment without impairing consciousness. Management of such refractory symptoms requires careful evaluation to identify the cause and predominant symptoms, which further helps in choosing a better therapeutic regime. It is often difficult to manage such cases and require sedatives and anti-psychotics to reverse the condition. Atypical antipsychotics are now playing a prominent role in the management of refractory delirium, and the selection of a drug that is suitable for the patient profile with negligible side effects is of utmost importance. We are presenting one such case, with multiple causes for his delirium, with a predominant hyperactive state and the refractory symptoms managed by atypical antipsychotics, antidepressants, and benzodiazepines.

Diagnosis and management of delirium in hospital oncology services

The diagnosis of delirium in oncologic services is a challenge; nowadays, there is very little evidence-based information available to guide the medical personnel in the diagnosis and decision taking regarding delirium in the oncologic patient. This article provides an updated review of the literature with extensive information on delirium in patients with cancer; the subject includes its definition, clinical features, precipitating and triggering factors, the frequency of delirium in oncological patients, its consequences, its treatment, and prognosis.

Challenges in Treating Cancer Patients With Unstable Psychiatric Disorder

In this review, we first present a case of chronic myeloid leukemia with acute psychosis, and then we will discuss the incidence of cancer in patients with psychotic disorders, the manifestations of new-onset psychosis, and the prevalence of preexisting psychosis in cancer patients, coupled with their impact on the treatment, diagnosis, and prognosis of cancer. This was a case that presented with acute psychosis and was found to have an elevated white blood cell count upon admission to an inpatient psychiatric unit. He was diagnosed with chronic myeloid leukemia and successfully managed with imatinib/dasatinib therapy. Psychiatrically, he was stabilized on two long-acting injectable medications to help maintain adherence. We were able to eliminate his active psychotic symptoms and return him to normal functioning in affect and thinking, achieving sustained compliance with treatment. We identified multiple inconsistencies in screening for cancer of all types in these patients, masking of signs and symptoms that would typically clue physicians to the presence of cancers, underreporting of symptoms, and disparate access to healthcare resources in patients with mental disorders when compared to the general population. Treatment of cancer in these patients as compared to the general population has also been shown to be incongruent, which will be elaborated upon. Psychiatric interventions, as well as supportive measures, for treating patients who are facing challenges during active cancer treatment will be discussed.

Delirium screening and mortality in patients with dementia admitted to acute hospitals

Objectives: Delirium is associated with increased mortality in older adults. National guidance recommends that all people with dementia who are admitted to hospital are screened for delirium. However, the impact of screening for delirium among inpatients with dementia has not been examined. This study aims to examine this relationship.Methods: Secondary analysis of data from 10,047 patients admitted to 199 hospitals in England and Wales that took part in the third round of the National Audit of Dementia. Multilevel logistic regression was used to examine associations between delirium screening and cognitive testing with inpatient mortality, adjusted for age, gender, diagnosis and hospital site as potential confounders.Results: The mean age of study patients was 84 years (SD = 7.9), 40.1% were male and 82.1% white British. 1285 patients (12.8%) died during their admission to hospital. Overall, 4466 (44.5%) patients were screened for delirium, of whom 2603 (58.6%) screened positive. The odds of mortality were lower in patients who underwent delirium screening (OR 0.84, 95% confidence interval 0.73 to 0.96) and in those receiving cognitive testing (OR 0.74, 95%CI 0.63-0.76).Conclusion: These results suggest that, among people with dementia who are admitted to hospital, screening for delirium and assessment of cognitive functioning may be associated with lower mortality. While we cannot be certain that these associations are causal, the findings support efforts that are being made to increase levels of screening for delirium among people with dementia who are admitted to hospital.

Safety and effectiveness of antipsychotic medication for delirium in patients with advanced cancer: A large-scale multicenter prospective observational study in real-world palliative care settings

OBJECTIVE

To clarify the safety and effectiveness of antipsychotic medication for delirium in patients with advanced cancer receiving palliative care.

METHODS

This was a prospective observational study involving consecutive patients with advanced cancer and delirium receiving antipsychotics in inpatient hospices or psycho-oncology settings. Adjusted mean scores of the Delirium Rating Scale Revised-98 (DRS; range: 0-39) were calculated at baseline and Day 3 using generalized estimating equations. Adverse events over 7 days were evaluated.

RESULTS

Data from 756 patients were analyzed (Mage = 72 ± 11 years, 62% male, 48% bedridden). The adjusted mean DRS score significantly decreased after antipsychotics administration (21.5 [95% confidence interval 19.5 to 23.4] to 20.8 [18.9 to 22.8], p = 0.03, effect size [ES] = 0.02). Significant improvement was associated with age of 75 or older (ES = 0.07), better performance status (0.32), longer estimated prognosis (0.25), psycho-oncological consultation settings (0.20), hyperactive (0.14) or mix-motor subtypes (0.24) of delirium, and quetiapine administration (0.19); significant deterioration was observed in patients with "days" prognosis (0.18). Extrapyramidal symptoms (9.8%) and somnolence (8.5%) were the most prevalent adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of antipsychotics as part of comprehensive delirium management was safe and may provide some symptomatic benefits for patients with terminal illness and delirium. Along with adequate non-pharmacological interventions, judicious use of antipsychotics is still recommended.

JPOS/JASCC clinical guidelines for delirium in adult cancer patients: a summary of recommendation statements

BACKGROUND

The Japanese Psycho-Oncology Society and Japanese Association of Supportive Care in Cancer recently launched the clinical practice guidelines for delirium in adult cancer patients. The aim of the guidelines was to provide evidence-based recommendations for the clinical assessment and management of delirium in cancer patients. This article reports the process of developing the guideline and summarizes the recommendations made.

METHODS

The guidelines were developed in accordance with the Medical Information Network Distribution Service creation procedures. The guideline development group, consisting of multidisciplinary members, formulated nine clinical questions. A systematic literature search was conducted to identify relevant articles published prior to through 31 May 2016. Each article was reviewed by two independent reviewers. The level of evidence and the strength of the recommendations were graded using the grading system developed by the Medical Information Network Distribution Service, following the concept of The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. The modified Delphi method was used to validate the recommendation statements.

RESULTS

This article provides a summary of the recommendations with rationales for each, as well as a short summary.

CONCLUSIONS

These guidelines will support the clinical assessment and management of delirium in cancer patients. However, additional clinical studies are warranted to further improve the management of delirium.

Olanzapine Versus Haloperidol for Treatment of Delirium in Patients with Advanced Cancer: A Phase III Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

Treatment of delirium often includes haloperidol. Second-generation antipsychotics like olanzapine have emerged as an alternative with possibly fewer side effects. The aim of this multicenter, phase III, randomized clinical trial was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of olanzapine with haloperidol for the treatment of delirium in hospitalized patients with advanced cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Eligible adult patients (≥18 years) with advanced cancer and delirium (Delirium Rating Scale-Revised-98 [DRS-R-98] total score ≥17.75) were randomized 1:1 to receive either haloperidol or olanzapine (age-adjusted, titratable doses). Primary endpoint was delirium response rate (DRR), defined as number of patients with DRS-R-98 severity score <15.25 and ≥4.5 points reduction. Secondary endpoints included time to response (TTR), tolerability, and delirium-related distress.

RESULTS

Between January 2011 and June 2016, 98 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. DRR was 45% (95% confidence interval [CI], 31-59) for olanzapine and 57% (95% CI, 43-71) for haloperidol (Δ DRR -12%; odds ratio [OR], 0.61; 95% CI, 0.2-1.4; p = .23). Mean TTR was 4.5 days (95% CI, 3.2-5.9 days) for olanzapine and 2.8 days (95% CI, 1.9-3.7 days; p = .18) for haloperidol. Grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 5 patients (10.2%) and 10 patients (20.4%) in the olanzapine and haloperidol arm, respectively. Distress rates were similar in both groups. The study was terminated early because of futility.

CONCLUSION

Delirium treatment with olanzapine in hospitalized patients with advanced cancer did not result in improvement of DRR or TTR compared with haloperidol. Clinical trial identification number. NCT01539733. Dutch Trial Register. NTR2559.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Guidelines recommend that pharmacological interventions for delirium treatment in adults with cancer should be limited to patients who have distressing delirium symptoms. It was suggested that atypical antipsychotics, such as olanzapine, outperform haloperidol in efficacy and safety. However, collective data comparing the efficacy and safety of typical versus atypical antipsychotics in patients with cancer are limited. If targeted and judicious use of antipsychotics is considered for the treatment of delirium in patients with advanced cancer, this study demonstrated that there was no statistically significant difference in response to haloperidol or olanzapine. Olanzapine showed an overall better safety profile compared with haloperidol, although this difference was not statistically significant.

Drug therapy for delirium in terminally ill adults

BACKGROUND

Delirium is a syndrome characterised by an acute disturbance of attention and awareness which develops over a short time period and fluctuates in severity over the course of the day. It is commonly experienced during inpatient admission in the terminal phase of illness. It can cause symptoms such as agitation and hallucinations and is distressing for terminally ill people, their families and staff. Delirium may arise from any number of causes and treatment should aim to address these causes. When this is not possible, or treatment is unsuccessful, drug therapy to manage the symptoms may become necessary. This is the second update of the review first published in 2004.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of drug therapies to manage delirium symptoms in terminally ill adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and PsycINFO from inception to July 2019, reference lists of retrieved papers, and online trial registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials of drug therapies in any dose by any route, compared to another drug therapy, a non-pharmacological approach, placebo, standard care or wait-list control, for the management of delirium symptoms in terminally ill adults (18 years or older).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently screened citations, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Primary outcomes were delirium symptoms; agitation score; adverse events. Secondary outcomes were: use of rescue medication; cognitive status; survival. We applied the GRADE approach to assess the overall quality of the evidence for each outcome and we include eight 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four studies (three new to this update), with 399 participants. Most participants had advanced cancer or advanced AIDS, and mild- to moderate-severity delirium. Meta-analysis was not possible because no two studies examined the same comparison. Each study was at high risk of bias for at least one criterion. Most evidence was low to very low quality, downgraded due to very serious study limitations, imprecision or because there were so few data. Most studies reported delirium symptoms; two reported agitation scores; three reported adverse events with data on extrapyramidal effects; and none reported serious adverse events. 1. Haloperidol versus placebo There may be little to no difference between placebo and haloperidol in delirium symptoms within 24 hours (mean difference (MD) 0.34, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.07 to 0.75; 133 participants). Haloperidol may slightly worsen delirium symptoms compared with placebo at 48 hours (MD 0.49, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.88; 123 participants with mild- to moderate-severity delirium). Haloperidol may reduce agitation slightly compared with placebo between 24 and 48 hours (MD -0.14, 95% -0.28 to -0.00; 123 participants with mild- to moderate-severity delirium). Haloperidol probably increases extrapyramidal adverse effects compared with placebo (MD 0.79, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.41; 123 participants with mild- to moderate-severity delirium). 2. Haloperidol versus risperidone There may be little to no difference in delirium symptoms with haloperidol compared with risperidone within 24 hours (MD -0.42, 95% CI -0.90 to 0.06; 126 participants) or 48 hours (MD -0.36, 95% CI -0.92 to 0.20; 106 participants with mild- to moderate-severity delirium). Agitation scores and adverse events were not reported for this comparison. 3. Haloperidol versus olanzapine We are uncertain whether haloperidol reduces delirium symptoms compared with olanzapine within 24 hours (MD 2.36, 95% CI -0.75 to 5.47; 28 participants) or 48 hours (MD 1.90, 95% CI -1.50 to 5.30, 24 participants). Agitation scores and adverse events were not reported for this comparison. 4. Risperidone versus placebo Risperidone may slightly worsen delirium symptoms compared with placebo within 24 hours (MD 0.76, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.22; 129 participants); and at 48 hours (MD 0.85, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.38; 111 participants with mild- to moderate-severity delirium). There may be little to no difference in agitation with risperidone compared with placebo between 24 and 48 hours (MD -0.05, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.09; 111 participants with mild- to moderate-severity delirium). Risperidone may increase extrapyramidal adverse effects compared with placebo (MD 0.73 95% CI 0.09 to 1.37; 111 participants with mild- to moderate-severity delirium). 5. Lorazepam plus haloperidol versus placebo plus haloperidol We are uncertain whether lorazepam plus haloperidol compared with placebo plus haloperidol improves delirium symptoms within 24 hours (MD 2.10, 95% CI -1.00 to 5.20; 50 participants with moderate to severe delirium), reduces agitation within 24 hours (MD 1.90, 95% CI 0.90 to 2.80; 52 participants), or increases adverse events (RR 0.70, 95% CI -0.19 to 2.63; 31 participants with moderate to severe delirium). 6. Haloperidol versus chlorpromazine We are uncertain whether haloperidol reduces delirium symptoms compared with chlorpromazine at 48 hours (MD 0.37, 95% CI -4.58 to 5.32; 24 participants). Agitation scores were not reported. We are uncertain whether haloperidol increases adverse events compared with chlorpromazine (MD 0.46, 95% CI -4.22 to 5.14; 24 participants). 7. Haloperidol versus lorazepam We are uncertain whether haloperidol reduces delirium symptoms compared with lorazepam at 48 hours (MD -4.88, 95% CI -9.70 to 0.06; 17 participants). Agitation scores were not reported. We are uncertain whether haloperidol increases adverse events compared with lorazepam (MD -6.66, 95% CI -14.85 to 1.53; 17 participants). 8. Lorazepam versus chlorpromazine We are uncertain whether lorazepam reduces delirium symptoms compared with chlorpromazine at 48 hours (MD 5.25, 95% CI 0.38 to 10.12; 19 participants), or increases adverse events (MD 7.12, 95% CI 1.08 to 15.32; 18 participants). Agitation scores were not reported.

SECONDARY OUTCOMES

use of rescue medication, cognitive impairment, survival There were insufficient data to draw conclusions or assess GRADE.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no high-quality evidence to support or refute the use of drug therapy for delirium symptoms in terminally ill adults. We found low-quality evidence that risperidone or haloperidol may slightly worsen delirium symptoms of mild to moderate severity for terminally ill people compared with placebo. We found moderate- to low-quality evidence that haloperidol and risperidone may slightly increase extrapyramidal adverse events for people with mild- to moderate-severity delirium. Given the small number of studies and participants on which current evidence is based, further research is essential.

Reversibility of delirium in Ill-hospitalized cancer patients: Does underlying etiology matter?

Background

The objective of this study was to explore the underlying etiologies associated with the resolution and improvement of delirium in ill‐hospitalized cancer patients.

Methods

We conducted a secondary analysis of a multicenter, prospective, observational study to estimate the effectiveness of pharmacotherapy for delirium. Participants were cancer patients with delirium. We assessed the Delirium Rating Scale, Revised‐98 (DRS‐R98) severity scale score at baseline and three days after pharmacotherapy initiation. Delirium resolution was defined as a DRS‐R98 severity scale score ≤9, and improvement was defined as ≥50% reduction at Day 3.

Results

We enrolled 566 patients (491 patients had performance status of 3 or 4). The resolution and improvement rates in all patients were 22.6% and 19.3%, respectively. Univariate analysis determined that nonrespiratory infection (OR 2.18, 95% CI 1.38‐3.45) was significantly associated with greater resolution, while dehydration (0.40, 0.19‐0.87), organic damage to the central nervous system (CNS) (0.32, 0.43‐0.72), hypoxia (0.25, 0.12‐0.52), and hyponatremia (0.34, 0.12‐0.97) were significantly associated with no resolution. Potential causes associated with delirium improvement were nonrespiratory infection (1.93, 1.19‐3.13), organic damage to the CNS (0.40, 0.18‐1.90), and hypoxia (0.32, 0.16‐0.65). After multivariate analysis, dehydration (0.34, 0.15‐0.76), organic damage to the CNS (0.25, 0.10‐0.60), and hypoxia (0.29, 0.14‐0.61) were significantly associated with no resolution.

Conclusions

Delirium caused by nonrespiratory infection may be reversible, while delirium associated with dehydration, organic damage to the CNS, hypoxia, or hyponatremia seems to be irreversible in ill‐hospitalized cancer patients.

A Scoping Review to Map Empirical Evidence Regarding Key Domains and Questions in the Clinical Pathway of Delirium in Palliative Care

CONTEXT

Based on the clinical care pathway of delirium in palliative care (PC), a published analytic framework (AF) formulated research questions in key domains and recommended a scoping review to identify evidence gaps.

OBJECTIVES

To produce a literature map for key domains of the published AF: screening, prognosis and diagnosis, management, and the health-related outcomes.

METHODS

A standard scoping review framework was used by an interdisciplinary study team of nurse- and physician-delirium researchers, an information specialist, and review methodologists to conduct the review. Knowledge user engagement provided context in refining 19 AF questions. A peer-reviewed search strategy identified citations in Medline, PsycINFO, Embase, and CINAHL databases between 1980 and 2018. Two reviewers independently screened records for inclusion using explicit study eligibility criteria for the population, design, delirium diagnosis, and investigational intent.

RESULTS

Of 104 studies reporting empirical data and meeting eligibility criteria, most were conducted in patients with cancer (73.1%) and in inpatient PC units (52%). The most frequent study design was a one or more group, nonrandomized trial or cohort (67.3%). Evidence gaps were identified: delirium risk prediction; comparative effectiveness and harms of prevention, variability in delirium management across PC settings, advanced directive and substitute decision-maker input, and transition of care location; and estimating delirium reversibility. Future rigorous primary studies are required to address these gaps and preliminary concerns regarding the quality of extant literature.

CONCLUSION

Substantial evidence gaps exist, providing opportunities for future research regarding the assessment, prognosis, and management of delirium in PC settings.

Current Pharmacotherapy Does Not Improve Severity of Hypoactive Delirium in Patients with Advanced Cancer: Pharmacological Audit Study of Safety and Efficacy in Real World (Phase-R)

BACKGROUND

Pharmacotherapy is generally recommended to treat patients with delirium. We sought to describe the current practice, effectiveness, and adverse effects of pharmacotherapy for hypoactive delirium in patients with advanced cancer, and to explore predictors of the deterioration of delirium symptoms after starting pharmacotherapy.

SUBJECTS, MATERIALS, AND METHODS

We included data of patients with advanced cancer who were diagnosed with hypoactive delirium and received pharmacotherapy for treatment of delirium. This was a pharmacovigilance study characterized by prospective registries and systematic data-recording using internet technology, conducted among 38 palliative care teams and/or units. The severity of delirium and other outcomes were assessed using established measures at days 0 (T0), 3 (T1), and 7 (T2).

RESULTS

Available data were obtained from 218 patients. The most frequently used agent was haloperidol (37%). A total of 67 and 42 patients (31% and 19%) had died or discontinued pharmacotherapy by T1 and T2, respectively. Delirium symptoms deteriorated between T0 and T1, but this trend did not reach statistical significance. The most prevalent adverse event was sedation (9%). Delirium severity worsened after starting pharmacotherapy in 121 patients (56%) at T1. In patients whose death was expected within a few days and those with delirium caused by organ failure, symptoms of delirium were significantly more likely to deteriorate after starting pharmacotherapy.

CONCLUSION

Current pharmacotherapy for hypoactive delirium in patients with advanced cancer is not recommended, especially in those whose death is expected within a few days and in those with delirium caused by organ failure.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Delirium is common among patients with advanced cancer, and hypoactive delirium is the dominant motor subtype in the palliative care setting. Pharmacotherapy is recommended and regularly used to treat delirium. This article describes the effectiveness and adverse effects of pharmacotherapy for hypoactive delirium in patients with advanced cancer. The findings of this study do not support the use of pharmacotherapy for treatment of hypoactive delirium in the palliative care setting. Pharmacotherapy should especially be avoided in patients whose death is expected within a few days and in those with delirium caused by organ failure.

Efficacy and Tolerability of Atypical Antipsychotics in the Treatment of Delirium: A Systematic Review of the Literature

BACKGROUND

Although haloperidol is the most widely used drug in the treatment of delirium, evidence on the relevance of atypical antipsychotics (AAPs) is growing.

OBJECTIVE

To review the literature on the efficacy and tolerability of AAPs in the treatment of delirium.

METHODS

A systematic search of the literature published before April 2018 was performed on PubMed using the following search strings: "Delirium" and "Atypical antipsychotics", "Novel antipsychotics", "New antipsychotics", "Quetiapine", "Olanzapine", "Aripiprazole", "Risperidone", "Paliperidone", "Clozapine", "Asenapine", "Iloperidone", "Amisulpiride", "Ziprasidone", "Zotepine", "Sertindole", "Lurasidone" or "Perospirone".

RESULTS

Twelve randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 22 open trials were considered. Despite an overall lack of large-scale RCTs, there is some evidence supporting the efficacy of olanzapine and quetiapine in placebo controlled trials. In a recent and large RCT in elderly patients, risperidone and/or haloperidol were associated with a significantly worse outcome than placebo. While preliminary, the current comparative studies suggest that haloperidol and the AAPs olanzapine, quetiapine and risperidone are similarly effective, although treatment with AAPs is associated with a reduced incidence of extrapyramidal symptoms. Ziprasidone was not shown to be effective. No RCTs are available for other AAPs.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the current evidence of the efficacy and tolerability of AAPs in the treatment of delirium is limited and the heterogeneity of the data precluded a meta-analysis, olanzapine and quetiapine seem to be adequate alternatives to haloperidol, especially in patients who are vulnerable for extrapyramidal symptoms, who require sedation or who have a history of haloperidol intolerance. Evidently, larger-scale RCTs are urgently required.

Intravenous Chlorpromazine for the Short-Term Treatment of Insomnia in End-Stage Cancer Patients With Difficulty in Oral Administration

The objective of the study was to evaluate effectiveness and safety of intravenous chlorpromazine for the short-term treatment of insomnia in end-stage cancer patients. Insomnia occurs as one of distressing symptoms in 70% of end-stage cancer patients. End-stage cancer patients often have difficulty in oral administration because of disease progress. We retrospectively evaluated 30 end-stage cancer patients with difficulty in oral administration who received intravenous chlorpromazine for the short-term treatment of insomnia. A primary end point was sleep quality based on St. Mary's Hospital Sleep Questionnaire 3 days after the treatment. Improved sleep quality was observed on the day after the treatment and later (P < .001), and the effective rate mean was 0.63 (95% confidential interval: 0.45-0.81) 3 days after the treatment. Increased total sleep time and decreased sleep latency time were observed 3 days after the treatment (P < .001); however, no improvement in depth of sleep was achieved (P = .231). There was no adverse event except for two delirium cases. The study indicated that intravenous chlorpromazine can be applied safely and effectively for the short-term treatment of insomnia in end-stage cancer patients with difficulty in oral administration.

Debate article: Antipsychotic medications are clinically useful for the treatment of delirium

Prescribing of antipsychotic medications for patients with delirium remains controversial. Concerns exist that these vulnerable and frail patients may be prescribed antipsychotics inappropriately as a substitute for non-pharmacological approaches when identifiable causes are not found or they challenge ward processes. Moreover, recent evidence suggests that antipsychotics may cause more harm than good in the palliative care patient group with delirium. On the other hand, guidelines in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands support prescribing of antipsychotics in certain circumstances, and a large European survey has revealed that antipsychotics tend to be prescribed first line for hyperactive delirium. Never before, therefore, is there a greater need to examine whether indeed these medications are clinically useful for the treatment of delirium. With this in mind, evidence-based arguments for and against prescribing antipsychotics for the treatment of delirium are presented in this debate article. The paper concludes with a moderation piece to help guide clinical practice.

Do the Phenotypes of Symptom Fluctuation Differ Among Motor Subtypes in Patients With Delirium?

CONTEXT

Fluctuation in symptoms is a core feature of delirium. However, it is not well known whether the fluctuating nature would differ or not among the delirium subtype groups.

OBJECTIVE

This study compared phenotypes of diurnal fluctuation among different delirium subtypes using a prospective design.

METHODS

The motor subtypes of delirium patients were determined using the Delirium Motor Subtype Scale, fluctuations in consciousness levels were monitored with the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS), and symptom severity was assessed with the Nursing Delirium Screening Scale (Nu-DESC). All scales were administered at three time points over 24 hours; fluctuations in and phenotypes of symptoms were compared according to subtype of delirium using repeated-measures analysis of variance after adjustment for covariates.

RESULTS

This study included 224 delirium patients. Of this patients, 144 (64.3%) were classified as hyperactive, 25 (11.2%) as hypoactive, 33 (14.7%) as mixed, and 22 (9.9%) as no subtype. Scores on the RASS and Nu-DESC significantly changed during the evening and/or night and there were significant subtype group × time interaction for the RASS and Nu-DESC (F = 9.66, P < 0.001 and F = 5.11, P < 0.001, respectively). Post hoc analyses revealed that the hyperactive and mixed subtype groups had higher mean RASS scores and greater ranges of fluctuation than the other groups. The mixed subtype group was differentiated from hyperactive and hypoactive subtype groups by the range of fluctuation in psychomotor activity.

CONCLUSIONS

The phenotypes of symptom fluctuation differed among the motor subtypes. These findings further support the rationale that fluctuations are a core feature of delirium and could differentiate delirium subtypes.

Postoperative delirium

Delirium can be defined as an ‘acute brain dysfunction.’ Compared to dementia, which is a disease that deteriorates the brain function chronically, delirium shows very similar symptoms but is mostly ameliorated when the causative factors are normalized. Due to the heterogeneity in etiologies and symptoms, people including health care workers often mistake delirium for dementia or other psychiatric disorders. Delirium has attracted global interest increasingly and a vast amount of research on its management has been conducted. Experts in the field have constantly suggested that systematic intervention should be implemented through a team-based multicomponent approach aimed to reduce the incidence and duration of delirium. Surgery involves many health care workers with different expertise who are not familiar with delirium. For a team-based approach on the management of delirium, it is vital that all medical personnel concerned have a common understanding of delirium and keep in constant communication. Postoperative delirium is a common complication and exerts an enormous burden on patients, their families, hospitals, and public resources. To alleviate this burden, this article aimed to review general features and the latest evidence-based knowledge of delirium with a focus on postoperative delirium.

Antipsychotics for treatment of delirium in hospitalised non-ICU patients

BACKGROUND

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.

OBJECTIVES

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.

SEARCH METHODS

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.

SELECTION CRITERIA

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.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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.

MAIN RESULTS

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).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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.

Factors Associated with the Effectiveness of Intravenous Administration of Chlorpromazine for Delirium in Patients with Terminal Cancer

BACKGROUND

Delirium in patients with terminal cancer is irreversible and increases treatment resistance, which leads to a deterioration in quality of life.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate factors affecting the effectiveness and safety of intravenous chlorpromazine for irreversible delirium in patients with terminal cancer.

DESIGN/MEASUREMENTS

Multiple regression analysis for factors affecting treatment effectiveness was carried out based on a retrospective comparison between responders and nonresponders to intravenous chlorpromazine.

SETTING/SUBJECTS

Ninety-seven patients with terminal cancer who were treated with intravenous chlorpromazine for irreversible delirium were included.

RESULTS

The rate of patients with ≥50% improvement in mean Nursing Delirium Screening Scale score from pretreatment to day three of chlorpromazine treatment was 0.48 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.38-0.58). Factors affecting chlorpromazine treatment effectiveness were hyperactive delirium (odds ratio [OR]: 6.25, 95% CI: 1.14-34.5) and longer survival (OR: 1.096, 95% CI: 1.05-1.14). The mean chlorpromazine dose was low, at 17.9 mg/day. Adverse events were reported in 11 patients (11.3%) by day three of chlorpromazine treatment, and all were observed in patients who survived less than two weeks after chlorpromazine treatment. Patients who died, who had decreased blood pressure during chlorpromazine administration, and who showed acute akathisia all displayed shock index ≥1.

CONCLUSIONS

Intravenous administration of low-dose chlorpromazine may be an effective and safe treatment option for delirium in patients with terminal cancer who have hyperactive delirium, longer predictive prognosis, and shock index <1.

A research study review of effectiveness of treatments for psychiatric conditions common to end-stage cancer patients: needs assessment for future research and an impassioned plea

BACKGROUND

Rates of psychiatric conditions common to end-stage cancer patients (delirium, depression, anxiety disorders) remain unchanged. However, patient numbers have increased as the population has aged; indeed, cancer is a chief cause of mortality and morbidity in older populations. Effectiveness of psychiatric interventions and research to evaluate, inform, and improve interventions is critical to these patients' care. This article's intent is to report results from a recent review study on the effectiveness of interventions for psychiatric conditions common to end-stage cancer patients; the review study assessed the state of research regarding treatment effectiveness. Unlike previous review studies, this one included non-traditional/alternative therapies and spirituality interventions that have undergone scientific inquiry.

METHODS

A five-phase systematic strategy and a theoretic grounded iterative methodology were used to identify studies for inclusion and to craft an integrated, synthesized, comprehensive, and reasonably current end-product.

RESULTS

Psychiatric medication therapies undoubtedly are the most powerful treatments. Among them, the most effective (i.e., "best practices benchmarks") are: (1) for delirium, typical antipsychotics-though there is no difference between typical vs. atypical and other antipsychotics, except for different side-effect profiles, (2) for depression, if patient life expectancy is ≥4-6 weeks, then a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI), and if < 3 weeks, then psychostimulants or ketamine, and these generally are useful anytime in the cancer disease course, and (3) for anxiety disorders, bio-diazepams (BDZs) are most used and most effective. A universal consensus suggests that psychosocial (i.e., talk) therapy and spirituality interventions fortify the therapeutic alliance and psychiatric medication protocols. However, trial studies have had mixed results regarding effectiveness in reducing psychiatric symptoms, even for touted psychotherapies.

CONCLUSIONS

This study's findings prompted a testable linear conceptual model of co-factors and their importance for providing effective psychiatric care for end-stage cancer patients. The complicated and tricky part is negotiating patients' diagnoses while articulating internal intricacies within and between each of the model's co-factors. There is a relative absence of scientifically derived information and need for more large-scale, diverse scientific inquiry. Thus, this article is an impassioned plea for accelerated study and better care for end-stage cancer patients' psychiatric conditions.

Delirium clinical motor subtypes: a narrative review of the literature and insights from neurobiology

INTRODUCTION

Clinical motor subtypes have been long recognised in delirium and, despite a growing body of research, a lack of clarity exists regarding the importance of these motor subtypes. The aims of this review are to (1) examine how the concept of motor subtypes has evolved, (2) explore their relationship to the clinical context, (3) discuss the relationship between the phenomenology of delirium and motor activity, (4) discuss the application of neurobiology to the theory of delirium motor subtypes, and (5) identify methodological issues and provide solutions for further studies.

METHODS

The following databases were searched: PubMed, PsychInfo, EBSCO, Medline, BioMed central and Science Direct. Inclusion criteria specified peer-reviewed research assessing delirium motor subtypes published between 1990 and 2016.

RESULTS

Sixty-one studies met the inclusion criteria. The majority of studies (n = 50) were found to use validated psychometric tools, while the remainder (n = 11) used clinical criteria. The majority of studies (n = 45) were conducted in the medical setting, while the remainder were in the ICU/post-operative setting (n = 17).

CONCLUSION

Although host sensitivities (e.g. frailty) and exogenous factors (e.g. medication exposure) may determine the type of motor disturbance, it remains unclear to what extent motor subtypes are influenced by other features of delirium. The use of more specialised tools (e.g. delirium motor subtyping scale), may enable researchers to develop an approach to delirium that has a greater nosological consistency. Future studies investigating delirium motor subtypes may benefit from enhanced theoretical considerations of the dysfunctional neural substrate of the delirious state.

The active management of delirium: improving detection and treatment

The management of delirium requires careful consideration of the potential value both of pharmacological interventions and of a range of non-drug strategies. Although placebo-controlled studies of delirium treatment are lacking, less robust evidence can still inform practice. This review makes the case for more active management of delirium on the basis of recent studies of prevention, early identification and treatment both during an episode and managing the aftermath in survivors. A drug-treatment algorithm for delirium advising how drug treatments can be tailored to the specific needs of individual patients is described.

Validation of the Korean Version of the Delirium Motor Subtype Scale

OBJECTIVE

The Delirium Motor Subtype Scale (DMSS) is a validated and reliable instrument developed from various methods previously used to assess delirium motor subtypes. It focuses on pure motor disturbances with a relative specificity for delirium. The aim of this study was to investigate the validity and reliability of a Korean version of the DMSS (K-DMSS).

METHODS

We recruited 145 patients who were older than 60 years and had been referred for psychiatric consultation for delirium. These patients were evaluated using the K-DMSS, Liptzin & Levkoff criteria, and the Korean version of the Delirium Rating Scale-Revised-98 (K-DRS-R98) to compare delirium motor subtypes.

RESULTS

The internal consistency of the K-DMSS in assessing delirium motor subtypes was acceptable (Cronbach's alpha=0.79). Delirium motor subtypes identified with the K-DMSS and K-DRS-R98 showed almost perfect agreement (Cohen's Kappa=0.81), while those identified with the K-DMSS and Liptzin & Levkoff criteria showed substantial agreement (Cohen's Kappa=0.78).

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that the K-DMSS is a valid and reliable tool for identifying delirium subtypes.

Evidence-Based Palliative Care 13 Years On: Has anything changed?

There is a paucity of data on whether interventions in individual palliative care units are evidence-based. Thirteen years ago an initial study evaluated the evidence base of interventions in palliative care. Using similar methodology in the present study, we evaluated the evidence for interventions performed in an inpatient palliative care setting, looking at level of evidence as well as quality and outcome of evidence. More than half of all the interventions (47 interventions, 59 percent) we looked at in a Brisbane, Australia, inpatient palliative care setting were based on a high level of evidence in the form of systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (level I or level II). There were only a few interventions (10 percent) for which no evidence could be retrieved. Our results show that the evidence base for interventions in palliative care continues to evolve, but that there are still areas for which further high-quality studies are needed.

Comparison of efficacy of haloperidol and olanzapine in the treatment of delirium

OBJECTIVE

Till date, typical antipsychotic haloperidol is the treatment of choice for delirium. But, due to higher side effects with haloperidol, newer atypical antipsychotics (e.g., olanzapine) are increasingly being used in the treatment of delirious patients. The aim of the current research was to study the efficacy and tolerability of haloperidol and olanzapine in the treatment of delirium.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was an open-label, randomized controlled study carried out in a tertiary care hospital at Chandigarh, India. A total of 100 patients admitted in medicine, surgery, and orthopedic wards and diagnosed as having delirium on Confusion Assessment Method scale were included in the study. Patients were given either haloperidol (1-4 mg/day either orally or by nasogastric tube) or olanzapine (2.5-10 mg/day either orally or by nasogastric tube). Severity of delirium and pattern of symptom improvement were assessed by Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale (MDAS). Extrapyramidal side effects were assessed by Simpson-Angus Scale.

RESULTS

There was an improvement in delirium severity in both groups with treatment. Mean daily dose of haloperidol and olanzapine used per patient was 2.10 and 5.49 mg, respectively, and the mean duration of treatment in olanzapine group and haloperidol group was 3.57 days and 3.37 days, respectively. There was no significant difference in the mean duration of treatment in both groups. At the end of study period, the MDAS scores in olanzapine and haloperidol groups were 8.43 and 8.00, respectively, and the difference was not significant statistically with P = 0.765. Five patients experienced drug-related mild side effects.

CONCLUSION

Low-dose haloperidol and olanzapine were equally efficacious and well tolerated in delirium.

Management of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Pediatric Patients

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is associated with a significant deterioration in quality of life and is perceived by patients as a major adverse effect of the treatment. This review summarizes the safety and efficacy of current antiemetic agents for the prevention of CINV in children. Information on antiemetic prophylaxis for CINV in children was obtained from a literature review of current peer-reviewed articles and recent international guidelines. The literature review and the international antiemetic guidelines provide recommendations for use of specific antiemetics in children based on the emetogenicity of the chemotherapy. 5-Hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT₃) receptor antagonists have been safe and effective in the prevention of acute emesis with a few patients experiencing mild headache. No adequate studies have been conducted to date for specific recommendations for the prevention of delayed nausea and vomiting in children. The neurokinin (NK)-₁ receptor antagonist aprepitant has been approved by the US FDA for use in children of a specific age and weight. No studies for the NK₁ receptor antagonists netupitant and rolapitant in children have been conducted. Olanzapine, an antipsychotic, has been shown to be safe and effective in preventing nausea and emesis in adult patients receiving chemotherapy. Its use in children has been limited to children with poor control of CINV; more studies are necessary in this population. In conclusion, practitioners should follow international antiemetic guidelines to provide patients with the specific antiemetics in the recommended dose for the highest possible quality of care.

A Review of Agents for Palliative Sedation/Continuous Deep Sedation: Pharmacology and Practical Applications

Continuous deep sedation at the end of life is a specific form of palliative sedation requiring a care plan that essentially places and maintains the patient in an unresponsive state because their symptoms are refractory to any other interventions. Because this application is uncommon, many providers may lack practical experience in this specialized area and resources they can access are outdated, nonspecific, and/or not comprehensive. The purpose of this review is to provide an evidence- and experience-based reference that specifically addresses those medications and regimens and their practical applications for this very narrow, but vital, aspect of hospice care. Patient goals in a hospital and hospice environments are different, so the manner in which widely used sedatives are dosed and applied can differ greatly as well. Parameters applied in end-of-life care that are based on experience and a thorough understanding of the pharmacology of those medications will differ from those applied in an intensive care unit or other medical environments. By recognizing these different goals and applying well-founded regimens geared specifically for end-of-life sedation, we can address our patients' symptoms in a more timely and efficacious manner.

Can Olanzapine Cause Delirium in the Elderly?

Objective:

To report a case of delirium probably caused by the atypical antipsychotic olanzapine in a 74-year-old man with dementia.

Case Summary:

A 74-year-old white man with a diagnosis of severe dementia of mixed etiology with behavioral disturbances was admitted to an urban teaching hospital for increasing agitation in the context of worsening dementia. Olanzapine 2.5 mg each evening was started for agitation, and the dose was titrated to 5 mg each evening with additional emergent doses. Memantine, an N-methyl-d-aspartate antagonist, was increased from the admission dose of 10 mg/day to 15 mg/day. The patient developed symptoms of delirium on hospital day 4. Neuroleptic malignant syndrome and other causes of delirium were ruled out. Discontinuation of olanzapine resulted in resolution of the delirium.

Discussion:

Antipsychotic medications are commonly used to treat symptoms of delirium. Atypical antipsychotics are better tolerated in the elderly because of their fewer adverse reactions compared with other antipsychotics. Olanzapine has been successfully used in the treatment of delirium. However, there have been case reports of delirium associated with olanzapine, probably related to its intrinsic anticholinergic effect. Application of the Naranjo probability scale indicated a probable relationship between the onset of delirium and the use of olanzapine in this patient. As of December 1, 2005, this was the second such report of a case in the elderly.

Conclusions:

Although olanzapine is useful in the treatment of delirium, elderly patients treated with this drug can develop delirium and hence should be closely monitored.

Phenomenology of delirium among patients admitted to a coronary care unit

AIM

To study the phenomenology and motor sub-types of delirium in patients admitted in a Coronary Care Unit (CCU).

METHODS

Three hundred and nine consecutive patients were screened for delirium, and those found positive for the same were evaluated by a psychiatrist on DSM-IVTR criteria to confirm the diagnosis. Those with a diagnosis of delirium were evaluated on the DRS-R-98 to study the phenomenology and on the amended Delirium Motor Symptom Scale (DMSS) to study the motor sub-types.

RESULTS

Eighty-one patients were found to have delirium. Commonly seen symptoms of delirium included: disturbances in sleep-wake cycle, lability of affect, thought abnormality, disturbance in attention, disorientation, short-term memory, and long-term memory. Very few patients had delusions. More than half of the participants were categorized as having hyperactive (n = 46; 56.8%) followed by hypoactive sub-type (n = 21; 26%) and mixed sub-type (n = 9; 11.1%) of delirium. There were minor differences in the frequency and severity of symptoms of delirium between incidence and prevalence cases of delirium and those with different motoric sub-types.

CONCLUSION

Delirium in CCU set-up is characterized by the symptoms of disturbances in sleep-wake cycle, lability of affect, thought abnormality, disturbance in attention, disorientation, short-term memory, and long-term memory. Hyperactive delirium is more common than hypoactive delirium.

Sedation and Analgesia-Prescribing Patterns in Terminally Ill Patients at the End of Life

The extensive use of sedative and analgesic medication at the end of life is often controversial due to the perception that death may be hastened as a result of progressive drug escalation. Physician attitudes toward prescribing medication in this setting vary, resulting in widely differing prescribing patterns for patients with advanced cancer. This investigation attempted to identify overall prescribing patterns and variation in the use of sedation and analgesia in an inpatient hospice setting at the end of life. A retrospective case review was undertaken of 102 consecutive patients who died in a palliative care hospice. A detailed review of medication prescription, with particular attention to sedation and analgesia in the last week of life, was performed. The review revealed that regular sedation was prescribed in 68 percent of the patients. Almost two-thirds of the patients began regular sedation on admission or within seven days of admission. Although survival was higher in patients who received regular sedation (mean, 36.5 days) versus those that did not (mean, 17 days), the difference was not significant (p = 0.1). Overall, regular sedation with moderate dose increases was observed. In patients prescribed morphine from the time of admission, morphine oral equivalents increased from a mean of 111 mg on admission to a mean of 346 mg at time of death for a mean escalation of 311 percent. The mean duration of admission was 26 days with an opioid-escalation index of 12 percent per day. Survival is a multifactorial phenomenon and was unrelated to the level of analgesia in this cohort. Findings showed that sedation dose increased modestly toward the end of life, and that the increase was not associated with a significant reduction in survival. Further, there was no significant impact on survival related to an individual physician's prescribing pattern at the end of life. These results suggest that, in the institution where the review was conducted, neither sedation nor individual variation in physician prescribing habits in terminally ill patients was associated with hastening of death. Overall, the amount of sedative drugs required for adequate symptom control during terminal care was moderate.

An Evaluation of Adverse Drug Reactions Associated With Antipsychotic Use for the Treatment of Delirium in the Intensive Care Unit

Purpose:

This investigation evaluated the incidence, severity, and harm of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) associated with antipsychotic use for intensive care unit (ICU) delirium.

Methods:

In this prospective, observational study patients were screened for development of delirium with the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC). An ICDSC score of ≥4 was considered delirious. Patients with delirium were screened daily for ADRs. Suspected ADRs were evaluated for drug causality using 3 published, objective assessment tools. Suspected ADRs were considered positive when 2 of 3 instruments had an agreement rating of “possible” or greater. ADR severity was defined as “mild/moderate” or “severe” using the National Cancer Institute’s Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events scale. A modified National Coordinating Council Medication Error Reporting Index for Categorizing Errors categorized ADRs into “no harm” or “harmful.”

Results:

Of 90 patients with delirium, 56 received antipsychotics. Ten suspected ADRs occurred attributed to antipsychotic use. QTc prolongation was the most observed ADR (50%). Patients with ADRs had higher mean Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) scores ( P = .038). Patients who received haloperidol experienced more severe ( P = .048) ADRs.

Conclusions:

ADRs were observed in 18% of patients having delirium treated with antipsychotics with about half considered severe or harmful. A risk versus benefit assessment is needed before initiating antipsychotic therapy in ICU patients.

Delirium in advanced age and dementia: A prolonged refractory course of delirium and lower functional status

OBJECTIVE

The factors associated with persistent delirium, in contrast to resolved delirium, have not been studied well. The aim of our present study was to identify the factors associated with delirium resolution as measured by the Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale (MDAS) and functional improvement as measured by the Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) scale.

METHOD

All subjects were recruited from psychiatric referrals at the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC). The two study instruments were performed at baseline (T1), at 2-3 days (T2), and at 4-7 days (T3). Subjects with persistent delirium were compared to those with resolved delirium in respect to sociodemographic and medical variables.

RESULTS

Overall, 26 out of 111 patients had persistent delirium. These patients were older, predominantly male, and had more frequently preexisting comorbid dementia. Among cancer diagnoses and stage of illness, brain cancer and terminal illness contributed to persistent delirium or late response, whereas gastrointestinal cancer was associated with resolved delirium. Among etiologies, infection responded late to delirium management, usually at one week. Furthermore, delirium was more severe in patients with persistent delirium from baseline through one week. At baseline, MDAS scores were 20.1 in persistent delirium compared to 17 to 18.8 in resolved delirium (T2 and T3), and at one week of management (T3), MDAS scores were 15.2 and 4.7 to 7.4, respectively. At one week of management, persistent delirium manifested in more severe impairment in the domains of consciousness, cognition, organization, perception, psychomotor behavior, and sleep-wake cycle. In addition, persistent delirium caused more severe functional impairment.

SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS

In this delirium sample, advanced age and preexisting dementia, as well as brain cancer, terminal illness, infection, and delirium severity contributed to persistent delirium or late response, indicating a prolonged and refractory course of delirium, in addition to more severe functional impairment through one week of management.

Use of aripiprazole for delirium in the elderly: a short review

The effects and tolerability of antipsychotics in delirium treatment remain controversial. Compared to other antipsychotics, aripiprazole differs in pharmacological activity because it exerts its effect as a dopamine D2 partial agonist. The guidelines of the American Psychiatric Association rank aripiprazole highly among antipsychotics with regard to safety, and this drug is likely to be useful for delirium treatment. Here, we reviewed the efficacy and safety of aripiprazole for delirium. The results of our literature review on the efficacy and safety of delirium treatments suggest that aripiprazole is an effective treatment option for delirium in the elderly. Aripiprazole is as effective as other antipsychotics in improving delirium symptoms, and it is safer because it is less likely to cause extrapyramidal symptoms, excessive sedation, and weight gain. However, these findings are based on only a few clinical studies of elderly patients with delirium. Therefore, further investigations are necessary.

Management of delirium in palliative care: a review

Delirium is a complex but common disorder in palliative care with a prevalence between 13 and 88 % but a particular frequency at the end of life (terminal delirium). By reviewing the most relevant studies (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycLit, PsycInfo, Cochrane Library), a correct assessment to make the diagnosis (e.g., DSM-5, delirium assessment tools), the identification of the possible etiological factors, and the application of multicomponent and integrated interventions were reported as the correct steps to effectively manage delirium in palliative care. In terms of medications, both conventional (e.g., haloperidol) and atypical antipsychotics (e.g., olanzapine, risperidone, quetiapine, aripiprazole) were shown to be equally effective in the treatment of delirium. No recommendation was possible in palliative care regarding the use of other drugs (e.g., α-2 receptors agonists, psychostimulants, cholinesterase inhibitors, melatonergic drugs). Non-pharmacological interventions (e.g., behavioral and educational) were also shown to be important in the management of delirium. More research is necessary to clarify how to more thoroughly manage delirium in palliative care.

Readings on psychosomatic medicine: survey of resources for trainees

BACKGROUND

As systems of care become more complex and comorbid medical and psychiatric illness becomes more evident, it is essential to prepare psychiatric trainees for practice in more integrated models of care.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to identify readings available for residency training in consultation-liaison (C-L) psychiatry/psychosomatic medicine with the intent to help educators and trainees identify appropriate and essential learning resources within the field.

METHODS

We reviewed readings available to the residents (including commonly used textbooks in C-L psychiatry and C-L training programs' required reading lists) and identified areas of consensus regarding the topics germane to the care of patients with comorbid medical and psychiatric illness (namely depression, dementia, and delirium) and the education of trainees.

RESULTS

There was considerable variation in the references cited by well-regarded textbooks and by reading lists created for trainees in C-L psychiatry. In the 4 textbooks reviewed, there were 83 shared citations on delirium (including 10 citations that were common to all 4 textbooks and 17 citations shared by 3 textbooks). Markedly less overlap was noted in the chapters on depression (only 2 references cited in all of the textbooks with relevant content) and dementia (only 7 shared references).

CONCLUSION

Given the paucity of overlap of citations in commonly used textbooks, we recommend that practical topical reviews or textbook chapters be used as core (required) or recommended readings for residents on C-L psychiatry rotations, supplemented by a small number of studies or case series that illustrate key teaching points on each essential topic.