Delirium: A Frequent Manifestation in COVID-19 Older Patients

The authors report a high prevalence of delirium in COVID-19 old patients admitted in an academic hospital. During the recent COVID-19 period, delirium was present in 38% of old patients admitted with delirium at the COVID ward of the Erasmus MC University Medical Center of Rotterdam. We do not know in which patients COVID-19 can cause delirium; however, considering the high prevalence of delirium in COVID-19 old patients and the potential serious consequences, attention is needed in order to reduce disability and mortality in this vulnerable category of patients

Neurofeedback Training for Psychiatric Disorders Associated with Criminal Offending: A Review

Background: Effective treatment interventions for criminal offenders are necessary to reduce risk of criminal recidivism. Evidence about deviant electroencephalographic (EEG)-frequencies underlying disorders found in criminal offenders is accumulating. Yet, treatment modalities, such as neurofeedback, are rarely applied in the forensic psychiatric domain. Since offenders usually have multiple disorders, difficulties adhering to long-term treatment modalities, and are highly vulnerable for psychiatric decompensation, more information about neurofeedback training protocols, number of sessions, and expected symptom reduction is necessary before it can be successfully used in offender populations. Method: Studies were analyzed that used neurofeedback in adult criminal offenders, and in disorders these patients present with. Specifically aggression, violence, recidivism, offending, psychopathy, schizophrenia, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), substance-use disorder (SUD), and cluster B personality disorders were included. Only studies that reported changes in EEG-frequencies posttreatment (increase/decrease/no change in EEG amplitude/power) were included. Results: Databases Psychinfo and Pubmed were searched in the period 1990-2017 according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, resulting in a total of 10 studies. Studies in which neurofeedback was applied in ADHD (N = 3), SUD (N = 3), schizophrenia (N = 3), and psychopathy (N = 1) could be identified. No studies could be identified for neurofeedback applied in cluster B personality disorders, aggression, violence, or recidivism in criminal offenders. For all treatment populations and neurofeedback protocols, number of sessions varied greatly. Changes in behavioral levels ranged from no improvements to significant symptom reduction after neurofeedback training. The results are also mixed concerning posttreatment changes in targeted EEG-frequency bands. Only three studies established criteria for EEG-learning. Conclusion: Implications of the results for the applicability of neurofeedback training in criminal offender populations are discussed. More research focusing on neurofeedback and learning of cortical activity regulation is needed in populations with externalizing behaviors associated with violence and criminal behavior, as well as multiple comorbidities. At this point, it is unclear whether standard neurofeedback training protocols can be applied in offender populations, or whether QEEG-guided neurofeedback is a better choice. Given the special context in which the studies are executed, clinical trials, as well as single-case experimental designs, might be more feasible than large double-blind randomized controls

Neurofeedback Training for Psychiatric Disorders Associated with Criminal Offending: A Review

BackgroundEffective treatment interventions for criminal offenders are necessary to reduce risk of criminal recidivism. Evidence about deviant electroencephalographic (EEG)-frequencies underlying disorders found in criminal offenders is accumulating. Yet, treatment modalities, such as neurofeedback, are rarely applied in the forensic psychiatric domain. Since offenders usually have multiple disorders, difficulties adhering to long-term treatment modalities, and are highly vulnerable for psychiatric decompensation, more information about neurofeedback training protocols, number of sessions, and expected symptom reduction is necessary before it can be successfully used in offender populations.MethodStudies were analyzed that used neurofeedback in adult criminal offenders, and in disorders these patients present with. Specifically aggression, violence, recidivism, offending, psychopathy, schizophrenia, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), substance-use disorder (SUD), and cluster B personality disorders were included. Only studies that reported changes in EEG-frequencies posttreatment (increase/decrease/no change in EEG amplitude/power) were included.ResultsDatabases Psychinfo and Pubmed were searched in the period 1990–2017 according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, resulting in a total of 10 studies. Studies in which neurofeedback was applied in ADHD (N = 3), SUD (N = 3), schizophrenia (N = 3), and psychopathy (N = 1) could be identified. No studies could be identified for neurofeedback applied in cluster B personality disorders, aggression, violence, or recidivism in criminal offenders. For all treatment populations and neurofeedback protocols, number of sessions varied greatly. Changes in behavioral levels ranged from no improvements to significant symptom reduction after neurofeedback training. The results are also mixed concerning posttreatment changes in targeted EEG-frequency bands. Only three studies established criteria for EEG-learning.ConclusionImplications of the results for the applicability of neurofeedback training in criminal offender populations are discussed. More research focusing on neurofeedback and learning of cortical activity regulation is needed in populations with externalizing behaviors associated with violence and criminal behavior, as well as multiple comorbidities. At this point, it is unclear whether standard neurofeedback training protocols can be applied in offender populations, or whether QEEG-guided neurofeedback is a better choice. Given the special context in which the studies are executed, clinical trials, as well as single-case experimental designs, might be more feasible than large double-blind randomized controls

The Multidimensional Prognostic Index Predicts Mortality in Older Outpatients with Cognitive Decline

Since the heterogeneity of the growing group of older outpatients with cognitive decline, it is challenging to evaluate survival rates in clinical shared decision making. The primary outcome was to determine whether the Multidimensional Prognostic Index (MPI) predicts mortality, whilst assessing the MPI distribution was considered secondary. This retrospective chart review included 311 outpatients aged ≥65 years and diagnosed with dementia or mild cognitive impairment (MCI). The MPI includes several domains of the comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA). All characteristics and data to calculate the risk score and mortality data were extracted from administrative information in the database of the Alzheimer’s Center and medical records. The study population (mean age 76.8 years, men = 51.4%) was divided as follows: 34.1% belonged to MPI category 1, 52.1% to MPI category 2 and 13.8% to MPI category 3. Patients with dementia have a higher mean MPI risk score than patients with MCI (0.47 vs. 0.32; p < 0.001). The HRs and corresponding 95% CIs for mortality in patients in MPI categories 2 and 3 were 1.67 (0.81–3.45) and 3.80 (1.56–9.24) compared with MPI category 1, respectively. This study shows that the MPI predicts mortality in outpatients with cognitive decline

Association between Clinical Frailty Scale score and hospital mortality in adult patients with COVID-19 (COMET): an international, multicentre, retrospective, observational cohort study

Background: During the COVID-19 pandemic, the scarcity of resources has necessitated triage of critical care for patients with the disease. In patients aged 65 years and older, triage decisions are regularly based on degree of frailty measured by the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS). However, the CFS could also be useful in patients younger than 65 years. We aimed to examine the association between CFS score and hospital mortality and between CFS score and admission to intensive care in adult patients of all ages with COVID-19 across Europe. Methods: This analysis was part of the COVID Medication (COMET) study, an international, multicentre, retrospective observational cohort study in 63 hospitals in 11 countries in Europe. Eligible patients were aged 18 years and older, had been admitted to hospital, and either tested positive by PCR for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) or were judged to have a high clinical likelihood of having SARS-CoV-2 infection by the local COVID-19 expert team. CFS was used to assess level of frailty: fit (CFS1–3), mildly frail (CFS4–5), or frail (CFS6–9). The primary outcome was hospital mortality. The secondary outcome was admission to intensive care. Data were analysed using a multivariable binary logistic regression model adjusted for covariates (age, sex, number of drugs prescribed, and type of drug class as a proxy for comorbidities). Findings: Between March 30 and July 15, 2020, 2434 patients (median age 68 years [IQR 55–77]; 1480 [61%] men, 954 [30%] women) had CFS scores available and were included in the analyses. In the total sample and in patients aged 65 years and older, frail patients and mildly frail patients had a significantly higher risk of hospital mortality than fit patients (total sample: CFS6–9 vs CFS1–3 odds ratio [OR] 2·71 [95% CI 2·04–3·60], p<0·0001 and CFS4–5 vs CFS1–3 OR 1·54 [1·16–2·06], p=0·0030; age ≥65 years: CFS6–9 vs CFS1–3 OR 2·90 [2·12–3·97], p<0·0001 and CFS4–5 vs CFS1–3 OR 1·64 [1·20–2·25], p=0·0020). In patients younger than 65 years, an increased hospital mortality risk was only observed in frail patients (CFS6–9 vs CFS1–3 OR 2·22 [1·08–4·57], p=0·030; CFS4–5 vs CFS1–3 OR 1·08 [0·48–2·39], p=0·86). Frail patients had a higher incidence of admission to intensive care than fit patients (CFS6–9 vs CFS1–3 OR 1·54 [1·21–1·97], p=0·0010), whereas mildly frail patients had a lower incidence than fit patients (CFS4–5 vs CFS1–3 OR 0·71 [0·55–0·92], p=0·0090). Among patients younger than 65 years, frail patients had an increased incidence of admission to intensive care (CFS6–9 vs CFS1–3 OR 2·96 [1·98–4·43], p<0·0001), whereas mildly frail patients had no significant difference in incidence compared with fit patients (CFS4–5 vs CFS1–3 OR 0·93 [0·63–1·38], p=0·72). Among patients aged 65 years and older, frail patients had no significant difference in the incidence of admission to intensive care compared with fit patients (CFS6–9 vs CFS1–3 OR 1·27 [0·92–1·75], p=0·14), whereas mildly frail patients had a lower incidence than fit patients (CFS4–5 vs CFS1–3 OR 0·66 [0·47–0·93], p=0·018). Interpretation: The results of this study suggest that CFS score is a suitable risk marker for hospital mortality in adult patients with COVID-19. However, treatment decisions based on the CFS in patients younger than 65 years should be made with caution. Funding: LOEY Foundation