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

A core outcome set for studies evaluating interventions to prevent and/or treat delirium for adults requiring an acute care hospital admission : an international key stakeholder informed consensus study

Abstract Background Trials of interventions to prevent or treat delirium in adults in an acute hospital setting report heterogeneous outcomes. Our objective was to develop international consensus among key stakeholders for a core outcome set (COS) for future trials of interventions to prevent and/or treat delirium in adults with an acute care hospital admission and not admitted to an intensive care unit. Methods A rigorous COS development process was used including a systematic review, qualitative interviews, modified Delphi consensus process, and in-person consensus using nominal group technique (registration http://www.comet - initiative.org/studies/details/796 ). Participants in qualitative interviews were delirium survivors or family members. Participants in consensus methods comprised international representatives from three stakeholder groups: researchers, clinicians, and delirium survivors and family members. Results Item generation identified 8 delirium-specific outcomes and 71 other outcomes from 183 studies, and 30 outcomes from 18 qualitative interviews, including 2 that were not extracted from the systematic review. De-duplication of outcomes and formal consensus processes involving 110 experts including researchers (N = 32), clinicians (N = 63), and delirium survivors and family members (N = 15) resulted in a COS comprising 6 outcomes: delirium occurrence and reoccurrence, delirium severity, delirium duration, cognition, emotional distress, and health-related quality of life. Study limitations included exclusion of non-English studies and stakeholders and small representation of delirium survivors/family at the in-person consensus meeting. Conclusions This COS, endorsed by the American and Australian Delirium Societies and European Delirium Association, is recommended for future clinical trials evaluating delirium prevention or treatment interventions in adults presenting to an acute care hospital and not admitted to an intensive care unit

High Tumour Cannabinoid CB1 Receptor Immunoreactivity Negatively Impacts Disease-Specific Survival in Stage II Microsatellite Stable Colorectal Cancer

BACKGROUND: There is good evidence in the literature that the cannabinoid system is disturbed in colorectal cancer. In the present study, we have investigated whether CB(1) receptor immunoreactive intensity (CB(1)IR intensity) is associated with disease severity and outcome. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: CB(1)IR was assessed in formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded specimens collected with a consecutive intent during primary tumour surgical resection from a series of cases diagnosed with colorectal cancer. Tumour centre (n = 483) and invasive front (n = 486) CB(1)IR was scored from 0 (absent) to 3 (intense staining) and the data was analysed as a median split i.e. CB(1)IR <2 and ≥2. In microsatellite stable, but not microsatellite instable tumours (as adjudged on the basis of immunohistochemical determination of four mismatch repair proteins), there was a significant positive association of the tumour grade with the CB(1)IR intensity. The difference between the microsatellite stable and instable tumours for this association of CB(1)IR was related to the CpG island methylation status of the cases. Cox proportional hazards regression analyses indicated a significant contribution of CB(1)IR to disease-specific survival in the microsatellite stable tumours when adjusting for tumour stage. For the cases with stage II microsatellite stable tumours, there was a significant effect of both tumour centre and front CB(1)IR upon disease specific survival. The 5 year probabilities of event-free survival were: 85±5 and 66±8%; tumour interior, 86±4% and 63±8% for the CB(1)IR<2 and CB(1)IR≥2 groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: The level of CB(1) receptor expression in colorectal cancer is associated with the tumour grade in a manner dependent upon the degree of CpG hypermethylation. A high CB(1)IR is indicative of a poorer prognosis in stage II microsatellite stable tumour patients

Design of Clinical Trials Evaluating Sedation in Critically Ill Adults Undergoing Mechanical Ventilation

Objectives: Clinical trials evaluating the safety and effectiveness of sedative medication use in critically ill adults undergoing mechanical ventilation differ considerably in their methodological approach. This heterogeneity impedes the ability to compare results across studies. The Sedation Consortium on Endpoints and Procedures for Treatment, Education, and Research Recommendations convened a meeting of multidisciplinary experts to develop recommendations for key methodologic elements of sedation trials in the ICU to help guide academic and industry clinical investigators. Design: A 2-day in-person meeting was held in Washington, DC, on March 28–29, 2019, followed by a three-round, online modified Delphi consensus process. Participants: Thirty-six participants from academia, industry, and the Food and Drug Administration with expertise in relevant content areas, including two former ICU patients attended the in-person meeting, and the majority completed an online follow-up survey and participated in the modified Delphi process. Measurements and Main Results: The final recommendations were iteratively refined based on the survey results, participants’ reactions to those results, summaries written by panel moderators, and a review of the meeting transcripts made from audio recordings. Fifteen recommendations were developed for study design and conduct, subject enrollment, outcomes, and measurement instruments. Consensus recommendations included obtaining input from ICU survivors and/or their families, ensuring adequate training for personnel using validated instruments for assessments of sedation, pain, and delirium in the ICU environment, and the need for methodological standardization. Conclusions: These recommendations are intended to assist researchers in the design, conduct, selection of endpoints, and reporting of clinical trials involving sedative medications and/or sedation protocols for adult ICU patients who require mechanical ventilation. These recommendations should be viewed as a starting point to improve clinical trials and help reduce methodological heterogeneity in future clinical trials

Validation of the SF-36 in patients with endometriosis.

OBJECTIVES: Endometriosis presents with significant pain as the most common symptom. Generic health measures can allow comparisons across diseases or populations. However, the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36 (SF-36) has not been validated for this disease. The goal of this study was to validate the SF-36 (version 2) for endometriosis. METHODS: Using data from two clinical trials (N = 252 and 198) of treatment for endometriosis, a full complement of psychometric analyses was performed. Additional instruments included a pain visual analog scale (VAS); a physician-completed questionnaire based on patient interview (modified Biberoglu and Behrman--B&B); clinical global impression of change (CGI-C); and patient satisfaction with treatment. RESULTS: Bodily pain (BP) and the Physical Component Summary Score (PCS) were correlated with the pain VAS at baseline and over time and the B&B at baseline and end of study. In addition, those who had the greatest change in BP and PCS also reported the greatest change on CGI-C and patient satisfaction with treatment. Other subscales showed smaller, but significant, correlations with change in the pain VAS, CGI-C, and patient satisfaction with treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The SF-36--particularly BP and the PCS--appears to be a valid and responsive measure for endometriosis and its treatment

Prioritising the most needed paediatric antiretroviral formulations: the PADO4 list

Despite considerable progress in paediatric HIV treatment and timely revision of global policies recommending the use of more effective and tolerable antiretroviral regimens, optimal antiretroviral formulations for infants, children, and adolescents remain limited. The Paediatric Antiretroviral Drug Optimization group reviews medium-term and long-term priorities for antiretroviral drug development to guide industry and other stakeholders on formulations most needed for low-income and middle-income countries. The group convened in December, 2018, to assess progress since the previous meeting and update the list of priority formulations. Issues relating to drug optimisation for neonatal prophylaxis and paediatric treatment, and those relating to the investigation of novel antiretrovirals in adolescents and pregnant and lactating women were also discussed. Continued focus on identifying, prioritising, and providing access to optimal antiretroviral formulations suitable for infants, children, and adolescents is key to ensuring that global HIV treatment targets can be met

Erratum to: 36th International Symposium on Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1186/s13054-016-1208-6.]

Deciphering the pathogenesis of tendinopathy: a three-stages process

Our understanding of the pathogenesis of "tendinopathy" is based on fragmented evidences like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. We propose a "failed healing theory" to knit these fragments together, which can explain previous observations. We also propose that albeit "overuse injury" and other insidious "micro trauma" may well be primary triggers of the process, "tendinopathy" is not an "overuse injury" per se. The typical clinical, histological and biochemical presentation relates to a localized chronic pain condition which may lead to tendon rupture, the latter attributed to mechanical weakness. Characterization of pathological "tendinotic" tissues revealed coexistence of collagenolytic injuries and an active healing process, focal hypervascularity and tissue metaplasia. These observations suggest a failed healing process as response to a triggering injury. The pathogenesis of tendinopathy can be described as a three stage process: injury, failed healing and clinical presentation. It is likely that some of these "initial injuries" heal well and we speculate that predisposing intrinsic or extrinsic factors may be involved. The injury stage involves a progressive collagenolytic tendon injury. The failed healing stage mainly refers to prolonged activation and failed resolution of the normal healing process. Finally, the matrix disturbances, increased focal vascularity and abnormal cytokine profiles contribute to the clinical presentations of chronic tendon pain or rupture. With this integrative pathogenesis theory, we can relate the known manifestations of tendinopathy and point to the "missing links". This model may guide future research on tendinopathy, until we could ultimately decipher the complete pathogenesis process and provide better treatments