Nurses' burden caused by sleep disturbances of nursing home residents with dementia: multicenter cross-sectional study

Background Sleep disturbances are common in people with dementia. In nursing homes, this is frequently associated with residents' challenging behavior and potentially with nurses' burden. This study examined nurses' burden associated with nursing home residents' sleep disturbances. Methods A multicenter cross-sectional study was conducted. Nurses' burden associated with residents' sleep disturbances was assessed using the Sleep Disorder Inventory (SDI). Additionally, the proportion of nurses' total burden associated with sleep disturbances of residents with dementia was assessed. A linear mixed regression model was used to investigate the association with nurses', residents' and institutional characteristics. Results One hundred eleven nurses from 38 nursing homes were included. 78.4% stated to be regularly confronted with residents' sleep disturbances during nightshifts, causing distress. The mean proportion of nurses' total burden caused by residents' sleep disturbances was 23.1 % (SD 18.1). None of the investigated characteristics were significantly associated with nurses' total burden. Conclusions Nurses report burden associated with sleep disturbances as common problem. There is a need to develop effective interventions for sleep problems and to train nurses how to deal with residents' sleep disturbances

Antipsychotics for agitation and psychosis in people with Alzheimer's disease and vascular dementia

Background Typical and atypical antipsychotics are widely used to treat agitation and psychosis in dementia. However, whether or not they are beneficial is uncertain. Some trials have yielded negative results and eMectiveness may be outweighed by harms. Objectives To assess the eMicacy and safety of antipsychotics for the treatment of agitation and psychosis in people with Alzheimer's disease and vascular dementia. Search methods We searched ALOIS, the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's register, MEDLINE (Ovid Sp), Embase (Ovid SP), PsycINFO (Ovid SP), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Web of Science Core Collection (ISI Web of Science), LILACS (BIREME), ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization's meta-register, and the International Clinical Trials Registry Portal on 7 January 2021. Two review authors independently screened the title and abstract of the hits, and two review authors assessed the full text of studies that got through this screening. Selection criteria We included randomised, placebo-controlled, parallel-arm trials comparing the eMects of antipsychotics and placebo for the treatment of agitation or psychosis in people with dementia due to Alzheimer's disease or vascular dementia, or both, irrespective of age, severity of cognitive impairment, and setting. (The majority of) participants had to have clinically significant agitation (including aggression) or psychosis or both at baseline. We excluded studies about antipsychotics that are no longer available in the USA or EU, or that are used for emergency short-term sedation. We also excluded head-to-head trials and antipsychotic withdrawal trials. Data collection and analysis The primary outcomes were (1) reduction in agitation or psychosis in participants with agitation or psychosis, respectively at baseline, and (2) the number of participants with adverse events: somnolence, extrapyramidal symptoms, any adverse event, any serious adverse event (SAE), and death. Two review authors independently extracted the necessary data and assessed risk of bias with the Cochrane risk of bias tool. We calculated the pooled eMect on agitation and psychosis for typical and atypical antipsychotics separately, and the pooled risk of adverse eMects independent of the target symptom (agitation or psychosis). We used RevMan Web for the analyses. Main results The search yielded 8233 separate hits. ANer assessing the full-text of 35 studies, we included 24 trials that met the eligibility criteria. Six trials tested a typical antipsychotic, four for agitation and two for psychosis. Twenty trials tested an atypical antipsychotic, eight for agitation and 12 for psychosis. Two trials tested both drug types. Seventeen of 26 comparisons were performed in patients with Alzheimer's disease specifically. The other nine comparisons also included patients with vascular dementia or mixed dementia. Together, the studies included 6090 participants (12 to 652 per study). The trials were performed in institutionalised, hospitalised and community-dwelling patients, or a combination of those. For typical antipsychotics (e.g. haloperidol, thiothixene), we are uncertain whether these drugs improve agitation compared with placebo (standardised mean diMerence (SMD) -0.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.57 to -0.15, 4 studies, n = 361); very low-certainty evidence, but typical antipsychotics may improve psychosis slightly (SMD -0.29, 95% CI -0.55 to -0.03, 2studies, n= 240; low-certainty evidence) compared with placebo. These drugs probably increase the risk of somnolence (risk ratio (RR) 2. 62, 95% CI 1.51 to 4.56, 3 studies, n = 466; moderatecertainty evidence) and increase extrapyramidal symptoms (RR 2.26, 95% CI 1.58 to 3.23, 3 studies, n = 467; high-certainty) evidence. There was no evidence regarding the risk of any adverse event. The risks of SAEs (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.66, 1 study, n = 193) and death (RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.54 to 4.00, 6 studies, n = 578) may be increased slightly, but these estimates were very imprecise, and the certainty was low. The eMect estimates for haloperidol from five trials were in line with those of the drug class. Atypical antipsychotics (e.g. risperidone, olanzapine, aripiprazole, quetiapine) probably reduce agitation slightly (SMD -0.21, 95% CI -0.30 to -0.12, 7 studies, n = 1971; moderate-certainty evidence), but probably have a negligible eMect on psychosis (SMD -0.11, 95% CI -0.18 to -0.03, 12 studies, n = 3364; moderate-certainty evidence). These drugs increase the risk of somnolence (RR 1.93, 95% CI 1.57 to 2.39, 13 studies, n - 3878; high-certainty evidence) and are probably also associated with slightly increased risk of extrapyramidal symptoms (RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.68, 15 studies, n = 4180; moderate-certainty evidence), serious adverse events (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.61, 15 studies, n= 4316; moderate-certainty evidence) and death (RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.90 to 2.05, 17 studies, n= 5032; moderate-certainty evidence), although the latter estimate was imprecise. The drugs probably have a negligible eMect on the risk of any adverse event (RR 1.05, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.09, 11 studies, n = 2785; moderate-certainty evidence). The findings from seven trials for risperidone were in line with those for the drug class. Authors' conclusions There is some evidence that typical antipsychotics might decrease agitation and psychosis slightly in patients with dementia. Atypical antipsychotics reduce agitation in dementia slightly, but their eMect on psychosis in dementia is negligible. The apparent eMectiveness of the drugs seen in daily practice may be explained by a favourable natural course of the symptoms, as observed in the placebo groups. Both drug classes increase the risk of somnolence and other adverse events. If antipsychotics are considered for sedation in patients with severe and dangerous symptoms, this should be discussed openly with the patient and legal representative

Characteristics of multicomponent, nonpharmacological interventions to reduce or avoid sleep disturbances in nursing home residents: a systematic review

Background: Dementia guidelines propose the use of nonpharmacological interventions for sleep disturbances for older people. Based on available reviews, it seems most likely that multicomponent interventions have the strongest potential to be effective in improving sleep. However, a detailed description of multicomponent interventions is missing. This systematic review aims to identify, describe, and summarize multicomponent, nonpharmacological interventions to reduce or avoid sleep disturbances in nursing home residents. Methods: This review followed established methodological frameworks for systematic evidence syntheses. A computerized search was conducted in December 2018, using the databases PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, and Cochrane Library. Two independent reviewers assessed all search results to identify eligible studies and assessed studies' methodological quality following the Cochrane Risk of Bias methodology for randomized controlled trials and the CASP Appraisal Checklist for controlled trials. Evaluation studies of any design investigating multicomponent interventions were included, except case studies. Components of included intervention programs were analyzed applying the TIDieR and CReDECI 2 criteria. Results: A total of 2056 studies were identified through the database search; ten publications about nine interventions met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review. The identified interventions can be summarized assigned to the categories daytime activities, nighttime activities, staff training, and light exposure. The approaches showed similarities and differences in procedures, materials, modes of delivery, intervention provider, and intervention period. None of the studies described any intended interactions between components or considered context characteristics in intervention modeling as well as internal and external facilitators or barriers influencing delivery of intervention. We identified positive or mixed positive effects for sleep-related outcomes for the mentioned categories. Conclusions: The analysis of included interventions demonstrates somehow promising results, although findings are difficult to interpret as interventions were not well described, and the challenges of developing and evaluating complex interventions were not sufficiently acknowledged