Understanding Factors Associated With Psychomotor Subtypes of Delirium in Older Inpatients With Dementia

Objectives: Few studies have analyzed factors associated with delirium subtypes. In this study, we investigate factors associated with subtypes of delirium only in patients with dementia to provide insights on the possible prevention and treatments. Design: This is a cross-sectional study nested in the “Delirium Day” study, a nationwide Italian point-prevalence study. Setting and Participants: Older patients admitted to 205 acute and 92 rehabilitation hospital wards. Measures: Delirium was evaluated with the 4-AT and the motor subtypes with the Delirium Motor Subtype Scale. Dementia was defined by the presence of a documented diagnosis in the medical records and/or prescription of acetylcholinesterase inhibitors or memantine prior to admission. Results: Of the 1057 patients with dementia, 35% had delirium, with 25.6% hyperactive, 33.1% hypoactive, 34.5% mixed, and 6.7% nonmotor subtype. There were higher odds of having venous catheters in the hypoactive (OR 1.82, 95% CI 1.18-2.81) and mixed type of delirium (OR 2.23, CI 1.43-3.46), whereas higher odds of urinary catheters in the hypoactive (OR 2.91, CI 1.92-4.39), hyperactive (OR 1.99, CI 1.23-3.21), and mixed types of delirium (OR 2.05, CI 1.36-3.07). We found higher odds of antipsychotics both in the hyperactive (OR 2.87, CI 1.81-4.54) and mixed subtype (OR 1.84, CI 1.24-2.75), whereas higher odds of antibiotics was present only in the mixed subtype (OR 1.91, CI 1.26-2.87). Conclusions and Implications: In patients with dementia, the mixed delirium subtype is the most prevalent followed by the hypoactive, hyperactive, and nonmotor subtype. Motor subtypes of delirium may be triggered by clinical factors, including the use of venous and urinary catheters, and the use of antipsychotics. Future studies are necessary to provide further insights on the possible pathophysiology of delirium in patients with dementia and to address the optimization of the management of potential risk factors

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy.

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field