-
Anales Del Sistema Sanitario de Navarra Apr 2021This article is a systematic review of studies that have investigated the initial management of patients with psychiatric conditions in hospital emergencies services in...
This article is a systematic review of studies that have investigated the initial management of patients with psychiatric conditions in hospital emergencies services in order to establish practical recommendations. A systematic review of the literature was carried out, consisting of studies published from 2010 to 2020, available in any language, consulting Cochrane Library Plus, PubMed, IBECS, LILACS and MEDLINE. The quality of the studies included in this review was assessed by the AMSTAR2 tool and the FCL 3.0 platform, together with the PRISMA statement. Results from the eleven papers selected showed that improvements in staff training, available resources, appropriate use of restraint and appropriate choice of medication can help to improve the care of patients with mental pathology in hospital emergency services. The same management for any other patient is recommended. However, if the patient is agitated or uncooperative, verbal, pharmacological and/or mechanical restraint (in this order) may be necessary. Keywords. Psychiatry. Psychomotor agitation. Crisis intervention. Hospital emergency service.
Topics: Emergency Service, Hospital; Hospitals; Humans; Mental Disorders; Psychomotor Agitation; Restraint, Physical
PubMed: 33853221
DOI: 10.23938/ASSN.0939 -
Brazilian Journal of Anesthesiology... 2021Dexmedetomidine (DEX) has been associated with a decrease in postoperative cognitive and behavioral dysfunction in patients submitted to general anesthesia, whether... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Dexmedetomidine reduces postoperative cognitive and behavioral dysfunction in adults submitted to general anesthesia for non-cardiac surgery: meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES
Dexmedetomidine (DEX) has been associated with a decrease in postoperative cognitive and behavioral dysfunction in patients submitted to general anesthesia, whether inhalation or total intravenous anesthesia. Consequently, the DEX effects on postoperative agitation and delirium in patients submitted to general anesthesia for non-cardiac surgery have been investigated.
METHOD
A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized and double-blind clinical trials (RCTs) was undertaken assessing adults submitted to elective procedures under general anesthesia receiving DEX or placebo. The search included articles published in English in the Pubmed and Web of Science databases using keywords such as dexmedetomidine, delirium, and agitation. Duplicate publications, studies involving cardiac surgery or using active control (other than saline solution) were included. A random effects model was adopted using the DerSimonian-Laird method and estimate of Odds Ratio (OR) for dichotomous variables, and weighted mean difference for continuous variables, with their respective 95% Confidence Intervals (95% CI).
RESULTS
Of the 484 articles identified, 15 were selected comprising 2,183 patients (1,079 and 1,104 patients in the DEX and control group, respectively). The administration of DEX was considered a protective factor for postoperative cognitive and behavioral dysfunction (OR=0.36; 95% CI 0.23-0.57 and p<0.001), regardless of the anesthesia technique used.
CONCLUSION
Dexmedetomidine administration reduced by at least 43% the likelihood of postoperative cognitive and behavioral dysfunction in adult patients submitted to general anesthesia for non-cardiac surgery.
Topics: Adult; Anesthesia, General; Cardiac Surgical Procedures; Cognition; Dexmedetomidine; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 33685760
DOI: 10.1016/j.bjane.2021.02.020 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2020Medications licensed for the treatment of dementia have limited efficacy against cognitive impairment or against the distressed behaviours (behavioural and psychological... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Medications licensed for the treatment of dementia have limited efficacy against cognitive impairment or against the distressed behaviours (behavioural and psychological symptoms, or behaviour that challenges) which are also often the most distressing aspect of the disorder for caregivers. Complementary therapies, including aromatherapy, are attractive to patients, practitioners and families, because they are perceived as being unlikely to cause adverse effects. Therefore there is interest in whether aromatherapy might offer a safe means of alleviating distressed behaviours in dementia.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of aromatherapy for people with dementia.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched ALOIS, the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group Specialized Register, on 5 May 2020 using the terms: aromatherapy, lemon, lavender, rose, aroma, alternative therapies, complementary therapies, essential oils. In addition, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO (all via Ovid SP), Web of Science Core Collection (via Thompson Web of Science), LILACS (via BIREME), CENTRAL (via the Cochrane Library), ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) trials portal (ICTRP) on 5 May 2020.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials which compared fragrance from plants in an intervention defined as aromatherapy for people with dementia with placebo aromatherapy or with treatment as usual. All doses, frequencies and fragrances of aromatherapy were considered. Participants in the included studies had a diagnosis of dementia of any subtype and severity.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two reviewers independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias in included studies, involving other authors to reach consensus decisions where necessary. We did not perform any meta-analyses because of heterogeneity between studies, but presented a narrative synthesis of results from the included trials. Because of the heterogeneity of analysis methods and inadequate or absent reporting of data from some trials, we used statistical significance (P ≤ or > 0.5) as a summary metric when synthesising results across studies. As far as possible, we used GRADE methods to assess our confidence in the results of the trials, downgrading for risk of bias and imprecision.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 13 studies with 708 participants. All participants had dementia and in the 12 trials which described the setting, all were resident in institutional care facilities. Nine trials recruited participants because they had significant agitation or other behavioural and psychological symptoms in dementia (BPSD) at baseline. The fragrances used were lavender (eight studies); lemon balm (four studies); lavender and lemon balm, lavender and orange, and cedar extracts (one study each). For six trials, assessment of risk of bias and extraction of results was hampered by poor reporting. Four of the other seven trials were at low risk of bias in all domains, but all were small (range 18 to 186 participants; median 66), reducing our confidence in the results. Our primary outcomes were agitation, overall behavioural and psychological symptoms, and adverse effects. Ten trials assessed agitation using various scales. Among the five trials for which our confidence in the results was moderate or low, four trials reported no significant effect on agitation and one trial reported a significant benefit of aromatherapy. The other five trials either reported no useable data or our confidence in the results was very low. Eight trials assessed overall BPSD using the Neuropsychiatric Inventory and we had moderate or low confidence in the results of five of them. Of these, four reported significant benefit from aromatherapy and one reported no significant effect. Adverse events were poorly reported or not reported at all in most trials. No more than two trials assessed each of our secondary outcomes of quality of life, mood, sleep, activities of daily living, caregiver burden. We did not find evidence of benefit on these outcomes. Three trials assessed cognition: one did not report any data and the other two trials reported no significant effect of aromatherapy on cognition. Our confidence in the results of these studies was low.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We have not found any convincing evidence that aromatherapy (or exposure to fragrant plant oils) is beneficial for people with dementia although there are many limitations to the data. Conduct or reporting problems in half of the included studies meant that they could not contribute to the conclusions. Results from the other studies were inconsistent. Harms were very poorly reported in the included studies. In order for clear conclusions to be drawn, better design and reporting and consistency of outcome measurement in future trials would be needed.
Topics: Aromatherapy; Behavioral Symptoms; Bias; Dementia; Humans; Oils, Volatile; Psychomotor Agitation; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 32813272
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003150.pub3 -
The Journal of International Medical... Jun 2020The sedative effects of dexmedetomidine (Dex) are similar to natural sleep, with easy wakening following Dex administration, and Dex has minor effects on breathing,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
The sedative effects of dexmedetomidine (Dex) are similar to natural sleep, with easy wakening following Dex administration, and Dex has minor effects on breathing, reducing emergence agitation in children. The aim of this study was to systematically evaluate the effects of Dex on recovery quality in children following general anaesthesia with sevoflurane, to aid clinical decision making.
METHODS
Relevant randomized controlled trials published before August 2019 were searched and selected from databases. Two researchers independently screened the literature, extracted data, and assessed included studies for bias risk. Meta-analysis was performed using Stata 14.0 software.
RESULTS
The study included 24 publications. Following general anaesthesia by sevoflurane, Dex was associated with reduced occurrence of emergence agitation (odds ratio [OR] 0.16, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.11, 0.25) and nausea and vomiting (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.24, 0.60), along with shortened eye-opening time (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.72, 95% CI 0.41, 1.03), shortened extubation time (SMD 0.54, 95% CI 0.28, 0.81), and reduced duration of post-anaesthesia care unit (PACU) stay (SMD 0.29, 95% CI 0.08, 0.51) versus placebo.
CONCLUSION
Dexmedetomidine has positive effects on recovery quality in children undergoing general anaesthesia with sevoflurane.
Topics: Anesthesia Recovery Period; Anesthesia, General; Anesthetics, Inhalation; Child; Child, Preschool; China; Dexmedetomidine; Female; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Male; Methyl Ethers; Propofol; Psychomotor Agitation; Sevoflurane
PubMed: 32583698
DOI: 10.1177/0300060520927530 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2020Dementia is a common and serious neuropsychiatric syndrome, characterised by progressive cognitive and functional decline. The majority of people with dementia develop...
BACKGROUND
Dementia is a common and serious neuropsychiatric syndrome, characterised by progressive cognitive and functional decline. The majority of people with dementia develop behavioural disturbances, also known as behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD). Several non-pharmacological interventions have been evaluated to treat BPSD in people with dementia. Simulated presence therapy (SPT), an intervention that uses video or audiotape recordings of family members played to the person with dementia, is a possible approach to treat BPSD.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of SPT on behavioural and psychological symptoms and quality of life in people with dementia.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched ALOIS (the Specialised Register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library) (9 April 2020), MEDLINE Ovid SP (1946 to 9 April 2020), Embase Ovid SP (1972 to 9 April 2020), PsycINFO Ovid SP (1806 to 9 April 2020), CINAHL via EBSCOhost (1980 to 9 April 2020), LILACS via BIREME (all dates to 9 April 2020), ClinicalTrials.gov (ClinicalTrials.gov) (all dates to 9 April 2020), and the World Health Organization (WHO) Portal (apps.who.int/trialsearch) (all dates to 9 April 2020). We also checked the reference lists of relevant articles to identify any additional studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials, including cross-over studies, that evaluated the efficacy of SPT, consisting of personalised audio or videotape recordings of family members, in people with any form of dementia.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. No meta-analyses were conducted because of substantial heterogeneity among the included studies.
MAIN RESULTS
Three trials with 144 participants met the inclusion criteria. Two of the trials had a randomised cross-over design, one was a cross-over trial which we classified as quasi-randomised. Participants in the included studies were people with dementia living in nursing homes. They were predominantly women and had a mean age of over 80 years. SPT was performed using an audio or video recording prepared by family members or surrogates. It varied in its content, frequency of administration and duration. All the studies compared multiple treatments. In one study, SPT was compared with two other interventions; in the other two studies, it was compared with three other interventions. Specifically, SPT was compared to usual care, personalised music (two studies), a 'placebo' audiotape containing the voice of a person (two studies), and one-to-one social interaction performed by trained research assistants (one study). In terms of outcomes evaluated, one study considered agitation and withdrawn behaviour (both assessed with three methods); the second study evaluated verbal disruptive behaviour (assessed with three methods); and the third study evaluated physically agitated behaviour and verbally agitated behaviour (the method used was not clearly described). According to the GRADE criteria, the overall quality of the evidence was very low due to very small numbers of participants and risk of bias in the included studies; (none of the trials was at low risk of selection bias; all the trials were at high risk of performance bias; one trial was at high risk of attrition bias; and all had unclear selective reporting). Because of variation in the participants, the format of SPT, the comparison interventions, and the measures used to assess outcomes, we judged the results unsuitable for a meta-analysis. Within each trial, the effect of SPT on behaviour, compared to usual care, was mixed and depended on the measure used. Two trials which included a personalised music intervention reported no significant differences between simulated presence and music on behavioural outcomes. Because the overall quality of the evidence was very low, we were very uncertain regarding all the results None of the studies evaluated quality of life or any of our secondary outcome measures (performance of activities of daily living, dropout and carer burden).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We were unable to draw any conclusions about the efficacy of SPT for treating behavioural and psychological symptoms and improving quality of life of people with dementia. New high-quality studies are needed to investigate the effect of SPT.
Topics: Aged, 80 and over; Dementia; Depression; Family; Female; Humans; Male; Psychomotor Agitation; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tape Recording; Videotape Recording
PubMed: 32311774
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011882.pub3 -
Journal of Critical Care Apr 2020Use systematic review methodology to summarize risk factors and outcomes for each delirium subtype (hypoactive, hyperactive and mixed) in an adult ICU population.
PURPOSE
Use systematic review methodology to summarize risk factors and outcomes for each delirium subtype (hypoactive, hyperactive and mixed) in an adult ICU population.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We searched the MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, SCOPUS, Web of Science and PsycINFO databases from database inception until August 13, 2018, with no restrictions.
RESULTS
Of 9635 abstracts, 20 studies were included. Older age was not associated with any delirium subtype in 4/7 (57%) studies. Sex was not associated with any delirium subtype in 4/4 (100%) studies. Mortality was consistently associated with hypoactive delirium in 4/7 (57%) studies. The evidence supporting the association of APACHE-II score, mechanical ventilation, length of stay, duration of delirium and removal of tubes were inconsistent across studies.
CONCLUSIONS
Although included studies reported on many subtype-specific risk factors and outcomes, heterogeneity in reporting and methodological quality limited the generalizability of the results and the evidence for many subtype-specific risk factors or outcomes is inconsistent across studies. Standardized methodology and the creation of a universal template for collecting data in ICU delirium studies are essential moving forward; helping to identify subtype-specific risk factors or outcomes and strengthen the association of potential risk factors or outcomes.
Topics: Aged; Critical Care; Delirium; Female; Humans; Intensive Care Units; Length of Stay; Male; Middle Aged; Psychomotor Agitation; Respiration, Artificial; Risk Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31986369
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2020.01.017 -
American Journal of Alzheimer's Disease... 2020World Health Organization has communicated that dementia as a public health priority in 2012. Behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia are the main reason... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
World Health Organization has communicated that dementia as a public health priority in 2012. Behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia are the main reason results in hospitalization of dementia patients. Horticulture is one of the favorite activity for many peoples to relax their minds.
OBJECTIVES
To investigate psychological health benefits of horticulture intervention in dementia patients.
METHODS
The databases including Cochrane Library, ProQuest, PubMed, EMBASE, EBSCO, Web of Science, and Ovid Medline were searched up to August 2017.
RESULTS
Twenty-three articles for systematic review, whereas 8 articles were included in meta-analysis. Meta-analysis verified the beneficial effect of horticultural therapy (HT) on agitation level (standard mean difference: -0.59; < .00001); increase time spent on activity engagement (mean differences [MD]: 45.10%, < .00001); decrease time for doing nothing (MD: -29.36%, = .02).
CONCLUSIONS
Patients with dementia benefit from horticultural by alleviating their degrees of agitate behaviors, increasing time of engaging in activities and decrease time of doing nothing.
Topics: Dementia; Horticultural Therapy; Humans; Psychomotor Agitation
PubMed: 31690084
DOI: 10.1177/1533317519883498 -
BMJ Open Jul 2019The aim of this systematic review was to assess the efficacy and safety of pharmacological agents in the management of agitated behaviours following traumatic brain...
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this systematic review was to assess the efficacy and safety of pharmacological agents in the management of agitated behaviours following traumatic brain injury (TBI).
METHODS
We performed a search strategy in PubMed, OvidMEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, Directory of Open Access Journals, LILACS, Web of Science and Prospero (up to 10 December 2018) for published and unpublished evidence on the risks and benefits of 9 prespecified medications classes used to control agitated behaviours following TBI. We included all randomised controlled trials, quasi-experimental and observational studies examining the effects of medications administered to control agitated behaviours in TBI patients. Included studies were classified into three mutually exclusive categories: (1) agitated behaviour was the presenting symptom; (2) agitated behaviour was not the presenting symptom, but was measured as an outcome variable; and (3) safety of pharmacological interventions administered to control agitated behaviours was measured.
RESULTS
Among the 181 articles assessed for eligibility, 21 studies were included. Of the studies suggesting possible benefits, propranolol reduced maximum intensities of agitation per week and physical restraint use, methylphenidate improved anger measures following 6 weeks of treatment, valproic acid reduced weekly agitated behaviour scale ratings and olanzapine reduced irritability, aggressiveness and insomnia between weeks 1 and 3 of treatment. Amantadine showed variable effects and may increase the risk of agitation in the critically ill. In three studies evaluating safety outcomes, antipsychotics were associated with an increased duration of post-traumatic amnesia (PTA) in unadjusted analyses. Small sample sizes, heterogeneity and an unclear risk of bias were limits.
CONCLUSIONS
Propranolol, methylphenidate, valproic acid and olanzapine may offer some benefit; however, they need to be further studied. Antipsychotics may increase the length of PTA. More studies on tailored interventions and continuous evaluation of safety and efficacy throughout acute, rehabilitation and outpatient settings are needed.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42016033140.
Topics: Antipsychotic Agents; Brain Injuries, Traumatic; Humans; Psychomotor Agitation; Psychoses, Substance-Induced; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 31289093
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029604 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2019Memantine is a moderate affinity uncompetitive antagonist of glutamate NMDA receptors. It is licensed for use in moderate and severe Alzheimer's disease (AD); in the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Memantine is a moderate affinity uncompetitive antagonist of glutamate NMDA receptors. It is licensed for use in moderate and severe Alzheimer's disease (AD); in the USA, it is also widely used off-label for mild AD.
OBJECTIVES
To determine efficacy and safety of memantine for people with dementia. To assess whether memantine adds benefit for people already taking cholinesterase inhibitors (ChEIs).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched ALOIS, the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's register of trials (http://www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/alois/) up to 25 March 2018. We examined clinical trials registries, press releases and posters of memantine manufacturers; and the web sites of the FDA, EMEA and NICE. We contacted authors and companies for missing information.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Double-blind, parallel group, placebo-controlled, randomised trials of memantine in people with dementia.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We pooled and analysed data from four clinical domains across different aetiologies and severities of dementia and for AD with agitation. We assessed the impact of study duration, severity and concomitant use of ChEIs. Consequently, we restricted analyses to the licensed dose (20 mg/day or 28 mg extended release) and data at six to seven months duration of follow-up, and analysed separately results for mild and moderate-to-severe AD.We transformed results for efficacy outcomes into the difference in points on particular outcome scales.
MAIN RESULTS
Across all types of dementia, data were available from almost 10,000 participants in 44 included trials, most of which were at low or unclear risk of bias. For nearly half the studies, relevant data were obtained from unpublished sources. The majority of trials (29 in 7885 participants) were conducted in people with AD.1. Moderate-to-severe AD (with or without concomitant ChEIs). High-certainty evidence from up to 14 studies in around 3700 participants consistently shows a small clinical benefit for memantine versus placebo: clinical global rating (CGR): 0.21 CIBIC+ points (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 0.30); cognitive function (CF): 3.11 Severe Impairment Battery (SIB) points (95% CI 2.42 to 3.92); performance on activities of daily living (ADL): 1.09 ADL19 points (95% CI 0.62 to 1.64); and behaviour and mood (BM): 1.84 Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI) points (95% CI 1.05 to 2.76). There may be no difference in the number of people discontinuing memantine compared to placebo: risk ratio (RR) 0.93 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.04) corresponding to 13 fewer people per 1000 (95% CI 31 fewer to 7 more). Although there is moderate-certainty evidence that fewer people taking memantine experience agitation as an adverse event: RR 0.81 (95% CI 0.66 to 0.99) (25 fewer people per 1000, 95% CI 1 to 44 fewer), there is also moderate-certainty evidence, from three additional studies, suggesting that memantine is not beneficial as a treatment for agitation (e.g. Cohen Mansfield Agitation Inventory: clinical benefit of 0.50 CMAI points, 95% CI -3.71 to 4.71) .The presence of concomitant ChEI does not impact on the difference between memantine and placebo, with the possible exceptions of the BM outcome (larger effect in people taking ChEIs) and the CF outcome (smaller effect).2. Mild AD (Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) 20 to 23): mainly moderate-certainty evidence based on post-hoc subgroups from up to four studies in around 600 participants suggests there is probably no difference between memantine and placebo for CF: 0.21 ADAS-Cog points (95% CI -0.95 to 1.38); performance on ADL: -0.07 ADL 23 points (95% CI -1.80 to 1.66); and BM: -0.29 NPI points (95% CI -2.16 to 1.58). There is less certainty in the CGR evidence, which also suggests there may be no difference: 0.09 CIBIC+ points (95% CI -0.12 to 0.30). Memantine (compared with placebo) may increase the numbers of people discontinuing treatment because of adverse events (RR 2.12, 95% CI 1.03 to 4.39).3. Mild-to-moderate vascular dementia. Moderate- and low-certainty evidence from two studies in around 750 participants indicates there is probably a small clinical benefit for CF: 2.15 ADAS-Cog points (95% CI 1.05 to 3.25); there may be a small clinical benefit for BM: 0.47 NOSGER disturbing behaviour points (95% CI 0.07 to 0.87); there is probably no difference in CGR: 0.03 CIBIC+ points (95% CI -0.28 to 0.34); and there may be no difference in ADL: 0.11 NOSGER II self-care subscale points (95% CI -0.35 to 0.54) or in the numbers of people discontinuing treatment: RR 1.05 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.34).There is limited, mainly low- or very low-certainty efficacy evidence for other types of dementia (Parkinson's disease and dementia Lewy bodies (for which CGR may show a small clinical benefit; four studies in 319 people); frontotemporal dementia (two studies in 133 people); and AIDS-related Dementia Complex (one study in 140 people)).There is high-certainty evidence showing no difference between memantine and placebo in the proportion experiencing at least one adverse event: RR 1.03 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.06); the RR does not differ between aetiologies or severities of dementia. Combining available data from all trials, there is moderate-certainty evidence that memantine is 1.6 times more likely than placebo to result in dizziness (6.1% versus 3.9%), low-certainty evidence of a 1.3-fold increased risk of headache (5.5% versus 4.3%), but high-certainty evidence of no difference in falls.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found important differences in the efficacy of memantine in mild AD compared to that in moderate-to-severe AD. There is a small clinical benefit of memantine in people with moderate-to-severe AD, which occurs irrespective of whether they are also taking a ChEI, but no benefit in people with mild AD.Clinical heterogeneity in AD makes it unlikely that any single drug will have a large effect size, and means that the optimal drug treatment may involve multiple drugs, each having an effect size that may be less than the minimum clinically important difference.A definitive long-duration trial in mild AD is needed to establish whether starting memantine earlier would be beneficial over the long term and safe: at present the evidence is against this, despite it being common practice. A long-duration trial in moderate-to-severe AD is needed to establish whether the benefit persists beyond six months.
Topics: Activities of Daily Living; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Akathisia, Drug-Induced; Alzheimer Disease; Cognition Disorders; Dementia; Dementia, Vascular; Excitatory Amino Acid Antagonists; Humans; Memantine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Withholding Treatment
PubMed: 30891742
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003154.pub6 -
Revista Brasileira de Psiquiatria (Sao... 2019To present the essential guidelines for pharmacological management of patients with psychomotor agitation in Brazil.
OBJECTIVE
To present the essential guidelines for pharmacological management of patients with psychomotor agitation in Brazil.
METHODS
This is a systematic review of articles retrieved from the MEDLINE (PubMed), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and SciELO databases published from 1997 to 2017. Other relevant articles in the literature were also used to develop these guidelines. The search strategy used structured questions formulated using the PICO model, as recommended by the Guidelines Project of the Brazilian Medical Association. Recommendations were summarized according to their level of evidence, which was determined using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine system and critical appraisal tools.
RESULTS
Of 5,362 articles retrieved, 1,731 abstracts were selected for further reading. The final sample included 74 articles that met all inclusion criteria. The evidence shows that pharmacologic treatment is indicated only after non-pharmacologic approaches have failed. The cause of the agitation, side effects of the medications, and contraindications must guide the medication choice. The oral route should be preferred for drug administration; IV administration must be avoided. All subjects must be monitored before and after medication administration.
CONCLUSION
If non-pharmacological strategies fail, medications are needed to control agitation and violent behavior. Once medicated, the patient should be monitored until a tranquil state is possible without excessive sedation.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRY NUMBER
CRD42017054440.
Topics: Antipsychotic Agents; Benzodiazepines; Brazil; Disease Management; Humans; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Psychiatric Status Rating Scales; Psychomotor Agitation
PubMed: 30843960
DOI: 10.1590/1516-4446-2018-0177