Dataset Information

Comparative effectiveness of pharmacological interventions to prevent postoperative delirium: a network meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: Many pharmacologic agents were investigated for the effect to prevent delirium. We aimed to comprehensively compare the effect of the pharmacological interventions to prevent postoperative delirium. A Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized trials was performed using random effects model. PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Embase were searched on 20 January 2021. Randomized trials comparing the effect of a drug to prevent postoperative delirium with another drug or placebo in adult patients undergoing any kind of surgery were included. Primary outcome was the postoperative incidence of delirium. Eighty-six trials with 26,992 participants were included. Dexmedetomidine, haloperidol, and atypical antipsychotics significantly decreased the incidence of delirium than placebo [dexmedetomidine: odds ratio 0.51, 95% credible interval (CrI) 0.40-0.66, moderate quality of evidence (QOE); haloperidol: odds ratio 0.59, 95% CrI 0.37-0.95, moderate QOE; atypical antipsychotics: odds ratio 0.27, 95% CrI 0.14-0.51, moderate QOE]. Dexmedetomidine and atypical antipsychotics had the highest-ranking probabilities to be the best. However, significant heterogeneity regarding diagnostic time window as well as small study effects precludes firm conclusion.

SUBMITTER: Park SK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8184858 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparative effectiveness of pharmacological interventions to prevent postoperative delirium: a network meta-analysis.

Park Sun-Kyung SK Lim Taeyoon T Cho Hyeyeon H Yoon Hyun-Kyu HK Lee Ho-Jin HJ Lee Ji-Hyun JH Yoo Seokha S Kim Jin-Tae JT Kim Won Ho WH

Scientific reports 20210607 1

Many pharmacologic agents were investigated for the effect to prevent delirium. We aimed to comprehensively compare the effect of the pharmacological interventions to prevent postoperative delirium. A Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized trials was performed using random effects model. PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Embase were searched on 20 January 2021. Randomized trials comparing the effect of a drug to prevent postoperative delirium with another drug ...[more]

PMID: 34099790

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeTo compare the effects of prevention interventions on delirium occurrence in critically ill adults.MethodsMEDLINE, Embase, PsychINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Prospero, and WHO international clinical trial registry were searched from inception to April 8, 2021. Randomized controlled trials of pharmacological, sedation, non-pharmacological, and multi-component interventions enrolling adult critically ill patients were included. We performed conventional pairwise meta-analyses, NMA within Bayesian random effects modeling, and determined surface under the cumulative ranking curve values and mean rank. Reviewer pairs independently extracted data, assessed bias using Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and evidence certainty with GRADE. The primary outcome was delirium occurrence; secondary outcomes were durations of delirium and mechanical ventilation, length of stay, mortality, and adverse effects.ResultsEighty trials met eligibility criteria: 67.5% pharmacological, 31.3% non-pharmacological and 1.2% mixed pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions. For delirium occurrence, 11 pharmacological interventions (38 trials, N = 11,993) connected to the evidence network. Compared to placebo, only dexmedetomidine (21/22 alpha2 agonist trials were dexmedetomidine) probably reduces delirium occurrence (odds ratio (OR) 0.43, 95% Credible Interval (CrI) 0.21-0.85; moderate certainty). Compared to benzodiazepines, dexmedetomidine (OR 0.21, 95% CrI 0.08-0.51; low certainty), sedation interruption (OR 0.21, 95% CrI 0.06-0.69; very low certainty), opioid plus benzodiazepine (OR 0.27, 95% CrI 0.10-0.76; very low certainty), and protocolized sedation (OR 0.27, 95% CrI 0.09-0.80; very low certainty) may reduce delirium occurrence but the evidence is very uncertain. Dexmedetomidine probably reduces ICU length of stay compared to placebo (Ratio of Means (RoM) 0.78, CrI 0.64-0.95; moderate certainty) and compared to antipsychotics (RoM 0.76, CrI 0.61-0.98; low certainty). Sedative interruption, protocolized sedation and opioids may reduce hospital length of stay compared to placebo, but the evidence is very uncertain. No intervention influenced mechanical ventilation duration, mortality, or arrhythmia. Single and multi-component non-pharmacological interventions did not connect to any evidence networks to allow for ranking and comparisons as planned; pairwise comparisons did not detect differences compared to standard care.ConclusionCompared to placebo and benzodiazepines, we found dexmedetomidine likely reduced the occurrence of delirium in critically ill adults. Compared to benzodiazepines, sedation-minimization strategies may also reduce delirium occurrence, but the evidence is uncertain.

Project description:Background: Several pharmacological interventions are now under investigation for the treatment of Covid-19, and the evidence is evolving rapidly. Our aim is to assess the comparative efficacy and safety of these drugs. Methods and Findings: We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis searching Medline, Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Covid-19 register, international trial registers, medRxiv, bioRxiv, and arXiv up to December 10, 2020. We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any pharmacological intervention for Covid-19 against any drugs, placebo or standard care (SC). Data extracted from published reports were assessed for risk of bias in accordance with the Cochrane tool, and using the GRADE framework. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs). We estimated summary risk ratio (RR) using pairwise and network meta-analysis with random effects (Prospero, number CRD42020176914). We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis searching Medline, Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Covid-19 register, international trial registers, medRxiv, bioRxiv, and arXiv up to December 10, 2020. We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any pharmacological intervention for Covid-19 against any drugs, placebo or standard care (SC). Data extracted from published reports were assessed for risk of bias in accordance with the Cochrane tool, and using the GRADE framework. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs). We estimated summary risk ratio (RR) using pairwise and network meta-analysis with random effects (Prospero, number CRD42020176914). We included 96 RCTs, comprising of 34,501 patients. The network meta-analysis showed in terms of all-cause mortality, when compared to SC or placebo, only corticosteroids significantly reduced the mortality rate (RR 0.90, 95%CI 0.83, 0.97; moderate certainty of evidence). Corticosteroids significantly reduced the mortality rate also when compared to hydroxychloroquine (RR 0.83, 95%CI 0.74, 0.94; moderate certainty of evidence). Remdesivir proved to be better in terms of SAEs when compared to SC or placebo (RR 0.75, 95%CI 0.63, 0.89; high certainty of evidence) and plasma (RR 0.57, 95%CI 0.34, 0.94; high certainty of evidence). The combination of lopinavir and ritonavir proved to reduce SAEs when compared to plasma (RR 0.49, 95%CI 0.25, 0.95; high certainty of evidence). Most of the RCTs were at unclear risk of bias (42 of 96), one third were at high risk of bias (34 of 96) and 20 were at low risk of bias. Certainty of evidence ranged from high to very low. Conclusion: At present, corticosteroids reduced all-cause mortality in patients with Covid-19, with a moderate certainty of evidence. Remdesivir appeared to be a safer option than SC or placebo, while plasma was associated with safety concerns. These preliminary evidence-based observations should guide clinical practice until more data are made public.

Project description:ImportanceAlthough several pharmacological interventions for delirium have been investigated, their overall benefit and safety remain unclear.ObjectiveTo evaluate evidence regarding pharmacological interventions for delirium treatment and prevention.Data sourcesPubMed, Embase, ProQuest, ScienceDirect, Cochrane Central, Web of Science, ClinicalKey, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to May 17, 2018.Study selectionRandomized clinical trials (RCTs) examining pharmacological interventions for delirium treatment and prevention.Data extraction and synthesisTo extract data according to a predetermined list of interests, the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines were applied, and all meta-analytic procedures were conducted using a random-effects model.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcomes were treatment response in patients with delirium and the incidence of delirium in patients at risk of delirium.ResultsA total of 58 RCTs were included, in which 20 RCTs with 1435 participants (mean age, 63.5 years; 65.1% male) compared the outcomes of treatment and 38 RCTs with 8168 participants (mean age, 70.2 years; 53.4% male) examined the prevention of delirium. A network meta-analysis demonstrated that haloperidol plus lorazepam provided the best response rate for delirium treatment (odds ratio [OR], 28.13; 95% CI, 2.38-333.08) compared with placebo/control. For delirium prevention, the ramelteon, olanzapine, risperidone, and dexmedetomidine hydrochloride groups had significantly lower delirium occurrence rates than placebo/control (OR, 0.07; 95% CI, 0.01-0.66 for ramelteon; OR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.09-0.69 for olanzapine; OR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.07-0.99 for risperidone; and OR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.31-0.80 for dexmedetomidine hydrochloride). None of the pharmacological treatments were significantly associated with a higher risk of all-cause mortality compared with placebo/control.Conclusions and relevanceThis network meta-analysis demonstrated that haloperidol plus lorazepam might be the best treatment and ramelteon the best preventive medicine for delirium. None of the pharmacological interventions for treatment or prophylaxis increased the all-cause mortality.

Project description:ImportanceDelirium, an acute disorder with high morbidity and mortality, is often preventable through multicomponent nonpharmacological strategies. The efficacy of these strategies for preventing subsequent adverse outcomes has been limited to small studies to date.ObjectiveTo evaluate available evidence on multicomponent nonpharmacological delirium interventions in reducing incident delirium and preventing poor outcomes associated with delirium.Data sourcesPubMed, Google Scholar, ScienceDirect, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from January 1, 1999, to December 31, 2013.Study selectionStudies examining the following outcomes were included: delirium incidence, falls, length of stay, rate of discharge to a long-term care institution (institutionalization), and change in functional or cognitive status.Data extraction and synthesisTwo experienced physician reviewers independently and blindly abstracted data on outcome measures using a standardized approach. The reviewers conducted quality ratings based on the Cochrane risk-of-bias criteria for each study.Main outcomes and measuresWe identified 14 interventional studies. The results for outcomes of delirium incidence, falls, length of stay, and institutionalization were pooled for the meta-analysis, but heterogeneity limited our meta-analysis of the results for change in functional or cognitive status. Overall, 11 studies demonstrated significant reductions in delirium incidence (odds ratio [OR], 0.47; 95% CI, 0.38-0.58). Four randomized or matched trials reduced delirium incidence by 44% (OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.42-0.76). The rate of falls decreased significantly among intervention patients in 4 studies (OR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.25-0.60); in 2 randomized or matched trials, the rate of falls was reduced by 64% (OR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.22-0.61). Length of stay and institutionalization also trended toward decreases in the intervention groups, with a mean difference of -0.16 (95% CI, -0.97 to 0.64) day shorter and the odds of institutionalization 5% lower (OR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.71-1.26). Among higher-quality randomized or matched trials, length of stay trended -0.33 (95% CI, -1.38 to 0.72) day shorter, and the odds of institutionalization trended 6% lower (OR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.69-1.30).Conclusions and relevanceMulticomponent nonpharmacological delirium prevention interventions are effective in reducing delirium incidence and preventing falls, with a trend toward decreasing length of stay and avoiding institutionalization. Given the current focus on prevention of hospital-based complications and improved cost-effectiveness of care, this meta-analysis supports the use of these interventions to advance acute care for older persons.

Dataset Information

Comparative effectiveness of pharmacological interventions to prevent postoperative delirium: a network meta-analysis.

Publications

Comparative effectiveness of pharmacological interventions to prevent postoperative delirium: a network meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets