Exploring Antipsychotic Use for Delirium Management in Adults in Hospital, Sub-Acute Rehabilitation and Aged Care Settings: A Systematic Literature Review

BACKGROUND

International guidelines discourage antipsychotic use for delirium; however, concerns persist about their continued use in clinical practice.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to describe the prevalence and patterns of antipsychotic use in delirium management with regard to best-practice recommendations. Primary outcomes investigated were prevalence of use, antipsychotic type, dosage and clinical indication.

METHODS

Eligibility criteria: studies of any design that examined antipsychotic use to manage delirium in adults in critical care, acute care, palliative care, rehabilitation, and aged care were included. Studies of patients in acute psychiatric care, with psychiatric illness or pre-existing antipsychotic use were excluded.

INFORMATION SOURCES

we searched five health databases on 16 August, 2023 (PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, APA PsycInfo, ProQuest Health and Medical Collection) using MeSH terms and relevant keywords, including 'delirium' and 'antipsychotic'. Risk of bias: as no included studies were randomised controlled trials, all studies were assessed for methodological quality using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool.

SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS

descriptive data were extracted in Covidence and synthesised in Microsoft Excel.

RESULTS

Included studies: 39 studies published between March 2004 and August 2023 from 13 countries (n = 1,359,519 patients). Most study designs were retrospective medical record audits (n = 16).

SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS

in 18 studies, participants' mean age was ≥65 years (77.79, ±5.20). Palliative care had the highest average proportion of patients with delirium managed with antipsychotics (70.87%, ±33.81%); it was lower and varied little between intensive care unit (53.53%, ±19.73%) and non-intensive care unit settings [medical, surgical and any acute care wards] (56.93%, ±26.44%) and was lowest in in-patient rehabilitation (17.8%). Seventeen different antipsychotics were reported on. In patients aged ≥65 years, haloperidol was the most frequently used and at higher than recommended mean daily doses (2.75 mg, ±2.21 mg). Other antipsychotics commonly administered were olanzapine (mean 11 mg, ±8.54 mg), quetiapine (mean 64.23 mg, ±43.20 mg) and risperidone (mean 0.97 mg, ±0.64 mg).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of antipsychotics to manage delirium is strongly discouraged in international guidelines. Antipsychotic use in delirium care is a risk for adverse health outcomes and a longer duration of delirium, especially in older people. However, this study has provided evidence that clinicians continue to use antipsychotics for delirium management, the dose, frequency and duration of which are often outside evidence-based guideline recommendations. Clinicians continue to choose antipsychotics to manage delirium symptoms to settle agitation and maintain patient and staff safety, particularly in situations where workload pressures are high. Sustained efforts are needed at the individual, team and organisational levels to educate, train and support clinicians to prioritise non-pharmacological interventions early before deciding to use antipsychotics. This could prevent delirium and avert escalation in behavioural symptoms that often lead to antipsychotic use.

Pharmacologic Management of End-of-Life Delirium: Translating Evidence into Practice

End-of-life delirium affects a vast majority of patients before death. It is highly distressing and often associated with restlessness or agitation. Unlike delirium in other settings, it is considered irreversible, and non-pharmacologic measures may be less feasible. The objective of this review is to provide an in-depth discussion of the clinical trials on delirium in the palliative care setting, with a particular focus on studies investigating pharmacologic interventions for end-of-life delirium. To date, only six randomized trials have examined pharmacologic options in palliative care populations, and only two have focused on end-of-life delirium. These studies suggest that neuroleptics and benzodiazepines may be beneficial for the control of the terminal restlessness or agitation associated with end-of-life delirium. However, existing studies have significant methodologic limitations. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings and examine novel therapeutic options to manage this distressing syndrome.

Natural language processing diagnosed behavioural disturbance phenotypes in the intensive care unit: characteristics, prevalence, trajectory, treatment, and outcomes

BACKGROUND

Natural language processing (NLP) may help evaluate the characteristics, prevalence, trajectory, treatment, and outcomes of behavioural disturbance phenotypes in critically ill patients.

METHODS

We obtained electronic clinical notes, demographic information, outcomes, and treatment data from three medical-surgical ICUs. Using NLP, we screened for behavioural disturbance phenotypes based on words suggestive of an agitated state, a non-agitated state, or a combination of both.

RESULTS

We studied 2931 patients. Of these, 225 (7.7%) were NLP-Dx-BD positive for the agitated phenotype, 544 (18.6%) for the non-agitated phenotype and 667 (22.7%) for the combined phenotype. Patients with these phenotypes carried multiple clinical baseline differences. On time-dependent multivariable analysis to compensate for immortal time bias and after adjustment for key outcome predictors, agitated phenotype patients were more likely to receive antipsychotic medications (odds ratio [OR] 1.84, 1.35-2.51, p < 0.001) compared to non-agitated phenotype patients but not compared to combined phenotype patients (OR 1.27, 0.86-1.89, p = 0.229). Moreover, agitated phenotype patients were more likely to die than other phenotypes patients (OR 1.57, 1.10-2.25, p = 0.012 vs non-agitated phenotype; OR 4.61, 2.14-9.90, p < 0.001 vs. combined phenotype). This association was strongest in patients receiving mechanical ventilation when compared with the combined phenotype (OR 7.03, 2.07-23.79, p = 0.002). A similar increased risk was also seen for patients with the non-agitated phenotype compared with the combined phenotype (OR 6.10, 1.80-20.64, p = 0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

NLP-Dx-BD screening enabled identification of three behavioural disturbance phenotypes with different characteristics, prevalence, trajectory, treatment, and outcome. Such phenotype identification appears relevant to prognostication and trial design.

Physicians' Beliefs and Attitudes Toward Hypoactive Delirium in The Last Days of Life

CONTEXT

The perspective toward hypoactive delirium in the last days of life could be different among physicians.

OBJECTIVES

To clarify the attitudes, beliefs, and opinions of palliative care physicians and liaison psychiatrists toward hypoactive delirium in the last days of life and to explore the association among these factors.

METHODS

A nationwide cross-sectional questionnaire survey was conducted among 1667 physicians who were either certified palliative care specialists or liaison psychiatrists. Physicians' agreement with the appropriateness of pharmacological management (e.g., antipsychotics) (one item), their beliefs (11 items), and their opinions (four items) were measured.

RESULTS

787 (47%) physicians responded. 481 (62%) agreed to use of medications for hypoactive delirium in the last days of life, whereas 296 (38.1%) disagreed. More than 95% agreed with "hypoactive delirium at the end of life can be considered as a part of natural dying process." Multivariate analysis identified two belief subscales of "hypoactive delirium at the end of life is a natural dying process" and "antipsychotics are futile and harmful in managing hypoactive delirium" had a significant negative correlation with the use of medications. On the other hand, one belief subscale of "hypoactive delirium can be distressing even if patients' consciousness is impaired" had significant positive correlations with the use of medications.

CONCLUSION

Pharmacological management of hypoactive delirium in the last days of life differs depending on physicians' beliefs. Future research is needed to clarify the efficacy and safety of pharmacological management of hypoactive delirium.

Neuroleptic strategies for terminal agitation in patients with cancer and delirium at an acute palliative care unit: a single-centre, double-blind, parallel-group, randomised trial

BACKGROUND

The role of neuroleptics for terminal agitated delirium is controversial. We assessed the effect of three neuroleptic strategies on refractory agitation in patients with cancer with terminal delirium.

METHODS

In this single-centre, double-blind, parallel-group, randomised trial, patients with advanced cancer, aged at least 18 years, admitted to the palliative and supportive care unit at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (Houston, TX, USA), with refractory agitation, despite low-dose haloperidol, were randomly assigned to receive intravenous haloperidol dose escalation at 2 mg every 4 h, neuroleptic rotation with chlorpromazine at 25 mg every 4 h, or combined haloperidol at 1 mg and chlorpromazine at 12·5 mg every 4 h, until death or discharge. Rescue doses identical to the scheduled doses were administered at inception, and then hourly as needed. Permuted block randomisation (block size six; 1:1:1) was done, stratified by baseline Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) scores. Research staff, clinicians, patients, and caregivers were masked to group assignment. The primary outcome was change in RASS score from time 0 to 24 h. Comparisons among group were done by modified intention-to-treat analysis. This completed study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03021486.

FINDINGS

Between July 5, 2017, and July 1, 2019, 998 patients were screened for eligibility, with 68 being enrolled and randomly assigned to treatment; 45 received the masked study interventions (escalation n=15, rotation n=16, combination n=14). RASS score decreased significantly within 30 min and remained low at 24 h in the escalation group (n=10, mean RASS score change between 0 h and 24 h -3·6 [95% CI -5·0 to -2·2]), rotation group (n=11, -3·3 [-4·4 to -2·2]), and combination group (n=10, -3·0 [-4·6 to -1·4]), with no difference among groups (p=0·71). The most common serious toxicity was hypotension (escalation n=6 [40%], rotation n=5 [31%], combination n=3 [21%]); there were no treatment-related deaths.

INTERPRETATION

Our data provide preliminary evidence that the three strategies of neuroleptics might reduce agitation in patients with terminal agitation. These findings are in the context of the single-centre design, small sample size, and lack of a placebo-only group.

FUNDING

National Institute of Nursing Research.

Impact of an educational workshop upon psychiatrists' attitudes towards delirium care

OBJECTIVES

Improving knowledge about delirium care is a key target for health care. We describe the implementation of a four-part workshop focusing upon key aspects of delirium care.

METHODS

Attitudes towards and understanding of delirium diagnosis and management amongst psychiatrists were surveyed before and immediately after an educational workshop.

RESULTS

There were 62 participants. Pre-workshop, delirium was rated highly relevant to psychiatry. Overall level of confidence in diagnosis was modest, with the behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia considered the most challenging differential diagnosis. Only nine participants (15%) correctly identified DSM-5 delirium criteria. Preferred assessment of attention varied with six different approaches endorsed. Confidence was higher for managing hyperactive compared with hypoactive delirium (p&lt;0.001). Pharmacotherapy was more frequently endorsed for hyperactive compared with hypoactive presentations, with haloperidol the most popular agent (p&lt;0.001). A total of 41 (66%) participants completed post-workshop assessments. Post-workshop, there were significant increases to the perceived relevance of delirium (p = 0.003), confidence in overall diagnosis (p&lt;0.001) accuracy of awareness of DSM-5 criteria (p&lt;0.001), and confidence in treating different presentations (p&lt;0.001). The Months Backward Test was the preferred bedside test of attention (38/40 respondents).

CONCLUSIONS

This interactive educational intervention impacted positively upon knowledge and attitudes amongst psychiatrists towards key aspects of delirium care. Further investigation can examine the impact upon longer term knowledge and behaviour.

Benzodiazepines for agitation in patients with delirium: selecting the right patient, right time, and right indication

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To provide an evidence-based synopsis on the role of benzodiazepines in patients with agitated delirium.

RECENT FINDINGS

Existing evidence supports the use of benzodiazepines in two specific delirium settings: persistent agitation in patients with terminal delirium and delirium tremens. In the setting of terminal delirium, the goal of care is to maximize comfort, recognizing that patients are unlikely to recover from their delirium. A recent randomized trial suggests that lorazepam in combination with haloperidol as rescue medication was more effective than haloperidol alone for the management of persistent restlessness/agitation in patients with terminal delirium. In patients with refractory agitation, benzodiazepines may be administered as scheduled doses or continuous infusion for palliative sedation. Benzodiazepines also have an established role in management of delirium secondary to alcohol withdrawal. Outside of these two care settings, the role of benzodiazepine remains investigational and clinicians should exercise great caution because of the risks of precipitating or worsening delirium and over-sedation.

SUMMARY

Benzodiazepines are powerful medications associated with considerable risks and benefits. Clinicians may prescribe benzodiazepines skillfully by selecting the right medication at the right dose for the right indication to the right patient at the right time.

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.

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.

The minimal clinically important difference of the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale in patients with cancer with agitated delirium

BACKGROUND

The Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) is commonly used to assess psychomotor activity; however, to the authors' knowledge, its minimal clinically important difference (MCID) has not been determined to date. The objective of the current study was to identify the MCID for RASS using 2 anchor-based approaches.

METHODS

The current study was a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial to compare the effect of lorazepam versus placebo as an adjuvant to haloperidol for persistent agitation in patients with delirium. The primary outcome was change in RASS (10-point numeric rating scale ranging from -5 [unarousable] to +4 [combative]) from baseline to 8 hours after treatment administration. The sensitivity-specificity and within-patient change methods were used to identify the MCID, with the anchor being patient comfort after the study intervention as perceived by caregivers and nurses.

RESULTS

A total of 90 patients were randomized and 58 (64%) received the study medication for restlessness/agitation (mean baseline RASS, 1.6). A total of 23 caregivers (61%) and 23 nurses (55%) perceived that the patient was more comfortable after treatment. Using the sensitivity-specificity method, the optimal RASS reduction was ≥4 points according to both caregivers (sensitivity of 61% and specificity of 80%; area under the curve, 0.71) and nurses (sensitivity of 73% and specificity of 84%; area under the curve, 0.78). The RASS cutoff value based on the within-patient change method was similar (-4.2 for caregivers and -4.0 for nurses).

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with persistent restlessness/agitation, a reduction of ≥4 points in RASS was considered to be the MCID for both nurses and caregivers. These preliminary findings may have implications for sample size calculation and the interpretation of treatment effect in future delirium trials. Cancer 2018;124:2246-52. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

Neuroleptics in the management of delirium in patients with advanced cancer

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Delirium is the most common and distressing neuropsychiatric syndrome in cancer patients. Few evidence-based treatment options are available due to the paucity of high quality of studies. In this review, we shall examine the literature on the use of neuroleptics to treat delirium in patients with advanced cancer. Specifically, we will discuss the randomized controlled trials that examined neuroleptics in the front line setting, and studies that explore second-line options for patients with persistent agitation.

RECENT FINDINGS

Contemporary management of delirium includes identification and management of any potentially reversible causes, coupled with nonpharmacological approaches. For patients who do not respond adequately to these measures, pharmacologic measures may be required. Haloperidol is often recommended as the first-line treatment option, and other neuroleptics such as olanzapine, risperidone, and quetiapine represent potential alternatives. For patients with persistent delirium despite first-line neuroleptics, the treatment strategies include escalating the dose of the same neuroleptic, rotation to another neuroleptic, or combination therapy (i.e., the addition of a second neuroleptic or other agent). We will discuss the advantages and disadvantages of each approach, and the available evidence to support each strategy.

SUMMARY

Adequately powered, randomized trials involving proper control interventions are urgently needed to define the optimal treatment strategies for delirium in the oncology setting.

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.

Changes in medication profile among patients with advanced cancer admitted to an acute palliative care unit

PURPOSE

The decision-making process for medication use in the last weeks of life is complex because of patient frailty and poor prognosis. Limited literature is available on medication use in the palliative care setting, particularly in acute palliative care units (APCUs). We examined the changes in medication profile among hospitalized patients with advanced cancer before their palliative care inpatient consultation team referral, after palliative care consultation, at the time of APCU admission, and at APCU discharge or death.

METHODS

We included consecutive patients with advanced cancer who were first seen by our inpatient palliative care consultation team and subsequently admitted to the APCU. We retrieved data on all scheduled medications at the prespecified time points.

RESULTS

Among the 100 patients, the median duration of hospitalization was 10.5 days (interquartile range 8-15 days), and the median APCU stay was 5 days (interquartile range 3-7 days). The average number of medications before palliative care inpatient consultation team referral, after palliative care consultation, at APCU admission and at APCU discharge/death was 9.2 (standard deviation [SD] 4.5), 9.9 (SD 4.2), 10.3 (SD 3.8), and 10.1 (SD 3.8), respectively (P = 0.03). An increasing proportion of patients received medications for symptom control over their course of hospitalization, including systemic corticosteroids, laxatives, neuroleptics, and antiulcer agents (P < 0.05). In contrast, the frequency of several classes of medications such as antihypertensives, antilipemics, and anticonvulsants decreased over time (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Palliative care involvement was associated with an increase in symptom control medications and decrease in medications for comorbid conditions over time.

A personalized approach to assessing and managing pain in patients with cancer

Pain is one of the most common and distressing symptoms in patients with cancer. In this review, we discuss an evidence-based approach to personalized pain assessment and management. Recent insights into the pain expression pathway have led to a paradigm shift in pain management, allowing clinicians to deliver personalized treatments tailored to the individual's needs. Personalized pain management begins with systematic screening, followed by comprehensive pain assessment. Impeccable characterization of pain informs its etiology and the mechanism to guide treatment choices. Identification of modulators of pain expression such as psychological distress, alcoholism, substance use, and delirium allow clinicians to further tailor treatment recommendations. Documentation of a personalized pain goal provides an individualized response criterion. A multidimensional treatment plan is then formulated targeting the pain mechanism, etiologic factors, and modulators. Finally, longitudinal monitoring customized to the individual's needs allows clinicians to improve adherence and, ultimately, to optimize pain control over time.

Development of an abbreviated version of the delirium motor subtyping scale (DMSS-4)

BACKGROUND

Delirium is a common neuropsychiatric syndrome with considerable heterogeneity in clinical profile. Identification of clinical subtypes can allow for more targeted clinical and research efforts. We sought to develop a brief method for clinical subtyping in clinical and research settings.

METHODS

A multi-site database, including motor symptom assessments conducted in 487 patients from palliative care, adult and old age consultation-liaison psychiatry services was used to document motor activity disturbances as per the Delirium Motor Checklist (DMC). Latent class analysis (LCA) was used to identify the class structure underpinning DMC data and also items for a brief subtyping scale. The concordance of the abbreviated scale was then compared with the original Delirium Motor Subtype Scale (DMSS) in 375 patients having delirium as per the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (4th edition) criteria.

RESULTS

Latent class analysis identified four classes that corresponded closely with the four recognized motor subtypes of delirium. Further, LCA of items (n = 15) that loaded >60% to the model identified four features that reliably identified the classes/subtypes, and these were combined as a brief motor subtyping scale (DMSS-4). There was good concordance for subtype attribution between the original DMSS and the DMSS-4 (κ = 0.63).

CONCLUSIONS

The DMSS-4 allows for rapid assessment of clinical subtypes in delirium and has high concordance with the longer and well-validated DMSS. More consistent clinical subtyping in delirium can facilitate better delirium management and more focused research effort.

Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy in cancer-related psychiatric disorders across the trajectory of cancer care: a review

At least 25-30% of patients with cancer and an even higher percentage of patients in an advanced phase of illness meet the criteria for a psychiatric diagnosis, including depression, anxiety, stress-related syndromes, adjustment disorders, sleep disorders and delirium. A number of studies have accumulated over the last 35 years on the use of psychotropic drugs as a pillar in the treatment of psychiatric disorders. Major advances in psycho-oncology research have also shown the efficacy of psychotropic drugs as adjuvant treatment of cancer-related symptoms, such as pain, hot flushes, pruritus, nausea and vomiting, fatigue, and cognitive impairment. The knowledge about pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, clinical use, safety, side effects and efficacy of psychotropic drugs in cancer care is essential for an integrated and multidimensional approach to patients treated in different settings, including community-based centres, oncology, and palliative care. A search of the major databases (MEDLINE, Embase, PsycLIT, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Library) was conducted in order to summarize relevant data concerning the efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy for cancer-related psychiatric disorders in cancer patients across the trajectory of the disease.

What do we really know about the treatment of delirium with antipsychotics? Ten key issues for delirium pharmacotherapy

Despite the significant burden of delirium among hospitalized adults, no pharmacologic intervention is approved for delirium treatment. Antipsychotic agents are the best studied but there are uncertainties as to how these agents can be optimally applied in everyday practice. We searched Medline and PubMed databases for publications from 1980 to April 2012 to identify studies of delirium treatment with antipsychotic agents. Studies of primary prevention using pharmacotherapy were not included. We identified 28 prospective studies that met our inclusion criteria, of which 15 were comparison studies (11 randomized), 2 of which were placebo-controlled. The quality of comparison studies was assessed using the Jadad scale. The DRS (N = 12) and DRS-R98 (N = 9) were the most commonly used instruments for measuring responsiveness. These studies suggest that around 75% of delirious patients who receive short-term treatment with low-dose antipsychotics experience clinical response. Response rates appear quite consistent across different patient groups and treatment settings. Studies do not suggest significant differences in efficacy for haloperidol versus atypical agents, but report higher rates of extrapyramidal side effects with haloperidol. Comorbid dementia may be associated with reduced response rates but this requires further study. The available evidence does not indicate major differences in response rates between clinical subtypes of delirium. The extent to which therapeutic effects can be explained by alleviation of specific symptoms (e.g. sleep or behavioral disturbances) versus a syndromal effect that encompasses both cognitive and noncognitive symptoms of delirium is not known. Future research needs to explore the relationship between therapeutic effects and changes in pathophysiological markers of delirium. Less than half of reports were rated as reasonable quality evidence on the Jadad scale, highlighting the need for future studies of better quality design, and in particular incorporating placebo-controlled work.

Palliative care research: lessons learned by our team over the last 25 years

BACKGROUND

In the last 25 years, palliative care has made major progress as an interdisciplinary specialty that addresses quality-of-life issues for patients with life-limiting illnesses and their families. Research by numerous investigators has contributed to our increasing body of knowledge to support an evidence-based practice.

AIM

We highlight some lessons learned by our group in the process of conducting palliative care research, focusing in particular on symptom assessment; the management of pain, fatigue, cachexia, dyspnea, delirium, and opioid-induced neurotoxicity; and outcomes of our palliative care program.

DESIGN

Narrative review of selected literature, focusing on studies conducted by our group.

DATA SOURCES

This article is based on the Second Vittorio Ventafridda Memorial Lecture by Dr Eduardo Bruera, delivered at the European Association for Palliative Care, Trondheim, Norway on 8 June 2012.

RESULTS

For each topic, we review some of the pivotal studies in palliative care, discuss the challenges in research design, and outline possible directions for future research.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude by sharing some of what we learned about the processes, pearls, and pitfalls of palliative care research.

High-Dose Neuroleptics and Neuroleptic Rotation for Agitated Delirium Near the End of Life

Reason for the study:

Agitated delirium presents unique challenges for hospice and palliative care clinicians. Haloperidol, the recommended neuroleptic, may be ineffective at low dose, or poorly tolerated at higher doses.

Main Findings:

This article reports on two patients with refractory agitated delirium. Both developed extrapyramidal symptoms from haloperidol and required rotation to an alternate neuroleptic. Patient #1 received 2000 mg/day oral chlorpromazine. Patient #2 received greater than 200 mg/day sublingual olanzapine. Control of agitation was achieved, though the doses were substantially higher than has previously reported in the literature. Each patient experienced considerable sedation, though this was an acceptable side effect for the family. Each patient was transferred from the acute care hospital to a location of family preference. There they died within a week of transfer.

Conclusions:

Agitated delirium is a palliative care emergency. High doses of neuroleptic medications, with rotation to an alternate neuroleptic when side effects occur with standard haloperidol, may effectively palliate agitated delirium. This remedy can provide the patient with a peaceful dying in a place of their choosing.

Psychopharmacology in psycho-oncology

Psychopharmacological intervention is a major clinical and research area in oncology and palliative care. Over the last 35 years, psychotropic drugs have been shown to have a number of important indications for the treatment of the most common psychiatric disorders, such as depression, anxiety, stress-related syndromes, severe adjustment disorders, sleep disorders and delirium, which combined affect at least 30-40% of patients with cancer and even a higher percentage of patients in an advanced phase of illness. The availability of new drugs, with less side-effects and safer pharmacological profiles, has been a major advance in clinical psycho-oncology. Interestingly, several drugs have also been found to be helpful for the adjuvant treatment of cancer-related symptoms, such as pain, hot flashes, pruritus, nausea and vomiting, fatigue, and cognitive impairment, making psychopharmacology an important tool for the improvement of cancer patients' quality of life. The aim of this paper is to summarize recent relevant data concerning the use of psychotropic drugs, namely antidepressants, anxiolytics, antipsychotics, anticonvulsants and psychostimulants in patients with cancer.

Comprehensive approaches to managing delirium in patients with advanced cancer

Delirium is a frequently under-recognized complication in patients with advanced cancer. Uncontrolled delirium eventually leads to significant distress to patients and their families. However, delirium episodes can be reversed in half of these patients by eliminating precipitating factors and using appropriate interventions. The purpose of this narrative review is to discuss the most recent updates in the literature on the management of delirium in patients with advanced cancer. This article addresses the epidemiology, cause, pathophysiology, clinical characteristics, and assessment of delirium as well as various treatment options, including nonpharmacologic intervention and palliative sedation.