Search

Purpose: The AID-ICU trial was a randomised, blinded, placebo-controlled trial investigating effects of haloperidol versus placebo in acutely admitted, adult patients admitted in intensive care unit (ICU) with delirium. This pre-planned Bayesian analysis facilitates probabilistic interpretation of the AID-ICU trial results.Methods: We used adjusted Bayesian linear and logistic regression models with weakly informative priors to analyse all primary and secondary outcomes reported up to day 90, and with sensitivity analyses using other priors. The probabilities for any benefit/harm, clinically important benefit/harm, and no clinically important differences with haloperidol treatment according to pre-defined thresholds are presented for all outcomes.Results: The mean difference for days alive and out of hospital to day 90 (primary outcome) was 2.9 days (95% credible interval (CrI) - 1.1 to 6.9) with probabilities of 92% for any benefit and 82% for clinically important benefit. The risk difference for mortality was - 6.8 percentage points (95% CrI - 12.8 to - 0.8) with probabilities of 99% for any benefit and 94% for clinically important benefit. The adjusted risk difference for serious adverse reactions was 0.3 percentage points (95% CrI - 1.3 to 1.9) with 98% probability of no clinically important difference. Results were consistent across sensitivity analyses using different priors, with more than 83% probability of benefit and less than 17% probability of harm with haloperidol treatment.Conclusions: We found high probabilities of benefits and low probabilities of harm with haloperidol treatment compared with placebo in acutely admitted, adult ICU patients with delirium for the primary and most secondary outcomes. Purpose: The AID-ICU trial was a randomised, blinded, placebo-controlled trial investigating effects of haloperidol versus placebo in acutely admitted, adult patients admitted in intensive care unit (ICU) with delirium. This pre-planned Bayesian analysis facilitates probabilistic interpretation of the AID-ICU trial results.Methods: We used adjusted Bayesian linear and logistic regression models with weakly informative priors to analyse all primary and secondary outcomes reported up to day 90, and with sensitivity analyses using other priors. The probabilities for any benefit/harm, clinically important benefit/harm, and no clinically important differences with haloperidol treatment according to pre-defined thresholds are presented for all outcomes.Results: The mean difference for days alive and out of hospital to day 90 (primary outcome) was 2.9 days (95% credible interval (CrI) - 1.1 to 6.9) with probabilities of 92% for any benefit and 82% for clinically important benefit. The risk difference for mortality was - 6.8 percentage points (95% CrI - 12.8 to - 0.8) with probabilities of 99% for any benefit and 94% for clinically important benefit. The adjusted risk difference for serious adverse reactions was 0.3 percentage points (95% CrI - 1.3 to 1.9) with 98% probability of no clinically important difference. Results were consistent across sensitivity analyses using different priors, with more than 83% probability of benefit and less than 17% probability of harm with haloperidol treatment.Conclusions: We found high probabilities of benefits and low probabilities of harm with haloperidol treatment compared with placebo in acutely admitted, adult ICU patients with delirium for the primary and most secondary outcomes.

ObjectivesTo assess any benefit or harm, we conducted a systematic review of randomised clinical trials (RCTs) allocating adults to dexmedetomidine versus placebo/no intervention for the prevention of delirium in intensive care or post-operative care units.Data SourcesWe searched Medline, Embase, CENTRAL and other databases. The last search was 9 April 2022.Data ExtractionLiterature screening, data extraction and risk of bias volume 2 assessments were performed independently and in duplicate. Primary outcomes were occurrences of serious adverse events (SAEs), delirium and all-cause mortality. We used meta-analysis, Trial Sequential Analysis, and GRADE (Grading Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation).Data SynthesisEighty-one RCTs (15,745 patients) provided data for our primary outcomes. Results from trials at low risk of bias showed that dexmedetomidine may reduce the occurrence of the most frequently reported SAEs (relative risk [RR] 0.69; 95% CI 0.43–1.09), cumulated SAEs (RR 0.70; 95% CI 0.52–0.95) and the occurrence of delirium (RR 0.62; 95% CI 0.43–0.89). The certainty of evidence was very low for delirium. Mortality was very low in trials at low risk of bias (0.4% in the dexmedetomidine groups and 1.0% in the control groups) and meta-analysis did not provide conclusive evidence that dexmedetomidine may result in lower or higher all-cause mortality (RR 0.47; 95% CI 0.18–1.21). There was a lack of information from trial results at low risk of bias for all primary outcomes.ConclusionsTrial results at low risk of bias showed that dexmedetomidine might reduce occurrences of SAEs and delirium, while no conclusive evidence was found for effects on all-cause mortality. The certainty of evidence ranged from very low for occurrence of delirium to low for the remaining outcomes. Objectives: To assess any benefit or harm, we conducted a systematic review of randomised clinical trials (RCTs) allocating adults to dexmedetomidine versus placebo/no intervention for the prevention of delirium in intensive care or post-operative care units. Data Sources: We searched Medline, Embase, CENTRAL and other databases. The last search was 9 April 2022. Data Extraction: Literature screening, data extraction and risk of bias volume 2 assessments were performed independently and in duplicate. Primary outcomes were occurrences of serious adverse events (SAEs), delirium and all-cause mortality. We used meta-analysis, Trial Sequential Analysis, and GRADE (Grading Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). Data Synthesis: Eighty-one RCTs (15,745 patients) provided data for our primary outcomes. Results from trials at low risk of bias showed that dexmedetomidine may reduce the occurrence of the most frequently reported SAEs (relative risk [RR] 0.69; 95% CI 0.43–1.09), cumulated SAEs (RR 0.70; 95% CI 0.52–0.95) and the occurrence of delirium (RR 0.62; 95% CI 0.43–0.89). The certainty of evidence was very low for delirium. Mortality was very low in trials at low risk of bias (0.4% in the dexmedetomidine groups and 1.0% in the control groups) and meta-analysis did not provide conclusive evidence that dexmedetomidine may result in lower or higher all-cause mortality (RR 0.47; 95% CI 0.18–1.21). There was a lack of information from trial results at low risk of bias for all primary outcomes. Conclusions: Trial results at low risk of bias showed that dexmedetomidine might reduce occurrences of SAEs and delirium, while no conclusive evidence was found for effects on all-cause mortality. The certainty of evidence ranged from very low for occurrence of delirium to low for the remaining outcomes.

Purpose of review Delirium in the intensive care unit (ICU) has become increasingly acknowledged as a significant problem for critically ill patients affecting both the actual course of illness as well as outcomes. In this review, we focus on the current evidence and the gaps in knowledge. Recent findings This review highlights several areas in which the evidence is weak and further research is needed in both pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment. A better understanding of subtypes and their different response to therapy is needed and further studies in aetiology are warranted. Larger studies are needed to explore risk factors for developing delirium and for examining long-term consequences. Finally, a stronger focus on experienced delirium and considering the perspectives of both patients and their families is encouraged. Summary With the growing number of studies and a better framework for research leading to stronger evidence, the outcomes for patients suffering from delirium will most definitely improve in the years to come.

Background Delirium is the most common cerebral dysfunction in the intensive care unit (ICU) and can be subdivided into a hypoactive, hyperactive, or mixed motor subtype based on the clinical manifestation. The aim of this review was to describe the distribution, pharmacological interventions, and outcomes of delirium motor subtypes in ICU patients. Methods This systematic scoping review was performed according to the PRISMA-ScR and Cochrane guidelines. We performed a systematic search in six major databases to identify relevant studies. A meta-regression analysis was performed where pooled estimates with 95% confidence intervals were computed by a random effect model. Results We included 131 studies comprising 13,902 delirious patients. There was a large between-study heterogeneity among studies, including differences in study design, setting, population, and outcome reporting. Hypoactive delirium was the most prevalent delirium motor subtype (50.3% [95% CI 46.0–54.7]), followed by mixed delirium (27.7% [95% CI 24.1–31.3]) and hyperactive delirium (22.7% [95% CI 19.0–26.5]). When comparing the delirium motor subtypes, patients with mixed delirium experienced the longest delirium duration, ICU and hospital length of stay, the highest ICU and hospital mortality, and more frequently received administration of specific agents (antipsychotics, α2-agonists, benzodiazepines, and propofol) during ICU stay. In studies with high average age for delirious patients (> 65 years), patients were more likely to experience hypoactive delirium. Conclusions Hypoactive delirium was the most prevalent motor subtype in critically ill patients. Mixed delirium had the worst outcomes in terms of delirium duration, length of stay, and mortality, and received more pharmacological interventions compared to other delirium motor subtypes. Few studies contributed to secondary outcomes; hence, these results should be interpreted with care. The large between-study heterogeneity suggests that a more standardized methodology in delirium research is warranted.

Background: Intensive care unit (ICU) patients receive numerous interventions, but knowledge about potential interactions between these interventions is limited. Co-enrolment in randomized clinical trials represents a unique opportunity to investigate any such interactions. We aim to assess interactions in four randomized clinical trials with overlap in inclusion periods and patient populations. Methods: This protocol and statistical analysis plan describes a secondary explorative analysis of interactions in four international ICU trials on pantoprazole, oxygenations targets, haloperidol and intravenous fluids, respectively. The primary outcome will be 90-day all-cause mortality. The secondary outcome will be days alive and out of hospital in 90 days after randomization. All patients included in the intention-to-treat populations of the four trials will be included. Four co-primary analyses will be conducted, one with each of the included trials as reference using a logistic regression model adjusted for the reference trial's stratification variables and for the co-interventions with interactions terms. The primary analytical measure of interest will be the analyses’ tests of interaction. A p-value below.05 will be considered statically significant. The stratification variable- and co-intervention-adjusted effect estimates will be reported with 95% confidence intervals without adjustments for multiplicity. Conclusion: This exploratory analysis will investigate the presence of any interactions between pantoprazole, oxygenation targets, haloperidol and amount of intravenous fluids in four international ICU trials using co-enrolment. Assessment of possible interactions represents valuable information to guide the design, statistical powering and conduct of future trials.

Background: Haloperidol is the most frequently used drug to treat delirium in the critically ill patients. Yet, no systematic review has focussed on the effects of haloperidol in critically ill patients with delirium. Methods: We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of haloperidol vs any intervention on all-cause mortality, serious adverse reactions/events, days alive without delirium, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), cognitive function and delirium severity in critically ill patients with delirium. We also report on QTc prolongation, delirium resolution and extrapyramidal symptoms. Results: We included 8 RCTs with 11 comparisons (n = 951). We adjudicated one trial as having overall low risk of bias. Three trials used rescue haloperidol; excluding these, we did not find an effect of haloperidol vs control on all-cause mortality (RR 1.01; 95% CI 0.33-3.06; I2 = 0%; 112 participants; 3 trials; 4 comparisons; very low certainty) or delirium severity (SMD −0.15; 95% CI −0.61-0.30; I2 = 27%; 134 participants; 3 trials; 4 comparisons; very low certainty). No trials reported adequately on serious adverse reactions/events. Only one trial reported on days alive without delirium, cognitive function and QTc prolongation, and no trials reported on HRQoL. Sensitivity analyses, including trials using rescue haloperidol, did not change the results. Conclusions: The evidence for the use of haloperidol to treat critically ill patients with delirium is sparse, of low quality and inconclusive. We therefore have no certainty regarding any beneficial, harmful or neutral effects of haloperidol in these patients.

BACKGROUND: The AID-ICU trial aims to assess the benefits and harms of haloperidol for the treatment of delirium in acutely admitted, adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients. This paper describes the detailed statistical analysis plan for the primary publication of results from the AID-ICU trial.METHODS: The AID-ICU trial is an investigator-initiated, pragmatic, international, multicentre, randomized, blinded, parallel-group trial allocating 1000 adult ICU patients with manifest delirium 1:1 to haloperidol or placebo. The primary outcome measure is days alive and out of hospital within 90 days post-randomization. Secondary outcome measures are days alive without delirium or coma, serious adverse reactions (SARs) to haloperidol, use of escape medicine, days alive without mechanical ventilation, and mortality, health-related quality-of-life measures and cognitive function 1-year post-randomization. Statistical analysis will be conducted in accordance with the current pre-specified statistical analysis plan. One formal interim analysis will be performed. The primary outcome will be adjusted for stratification variables (site and delirium motor subtype) and compared between treatment groups using a likelihood ratio test described by Jensen et al A secondary analysis will be conducted with additional adjustment of the primary outcome for prognostic variables at baseline. The primary conclusion of the trial will be based on the intention-to-treat analysis of the primary outcome adjusted for stratification variables.CONCLUSION: The AID-ICU trial will provide important, high-quality data on the benefits and harms of treatment with haloperidol in acutely admitted, adult patients with manifest delirium in the ICU.

Background Intensive care unit (ICU)-acquired delirium is frequent and associated with poor short- and long-term outcomes for patients in ICUs. It therefore constitutes a major healthcare problem. Despite limited evidence, haloperidol is the most frequently used pharmacological intervention against ICU-acquired delirium. Agents intervening against Delirium in the ICU (AID-ICU) is an international, multicentre, randomised, blinded, placebo-controlled trial investigates benefits and harms of treatment with haloperidol in patients with ICU-acquired delirium. The current pre-planned one-year follow-up study of the AID-ICU trial population aims to explore the effects of haloperidol on one-year mortality and health related quality of life (HRQoL). Methods The AID-ICU trial will include 1000 participants. One-year mortality will be obtained from the trial sites; we will validate the vital status of Danish participants using the Danish National Health Data Registers. Mortality will be analysed by Cox-regression and visualized by Kaplan-Meier curves tested for significance using the log-rank test. We will obtain HRQoL data using the EQ-5D instrument. HRQoL analysis will be performed using a general linear model adjusted for stratification variables. Deceased participants will be designated the worst possible value. Results We expect to publish results of this study in 2022. Conclusion We expect that this one-year follow-up study of participants with ICU-acquired delirium allocated to haloperidol vs. placebo will provide important information on the long-term consequences of delirium including the effects of haloperidol. We expect that our results will improve the care of this vulnerable patient group.

BACKGROUND: Delirium among patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) is a common condition associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Haloperidol is the most frequently used pharmacologic intervention, but its use is not supported by firm evidence. Therefore, we are conducting Agents Intervening against Delirium in the Intensive Care Unit (AID-ICU) trial to assess the benefits and harms of haloperidol for the treatment of ICU-acquired delirium.METHODS: AID-ICU is an investigator-initiated, pragmatic, international, randomised, blinded, parallel-group, trial allocating adult ICU patients with manifest delirium 1:1 to haloperidol or placebo. Trial participants will receive intravenous 2.5 mg haloperidol three times daily or matching placebo (isotonic saline 0.9%) if they are delirious. If needed, a maximum of 20 mg/daily haloperidol/placebo is given. An escape protocol, not including haloperidol, is part of the trial protocol. The primary outcome is days alive out of the hospital within 90 days post-randomisation. Secondary outcomes are number of days without delirium or coma, serious adverse reactions to haloperidol, usage of escape medication, number of days alive without mechanical ventilation; mortality, health-related quality-of-life and cognitive function at 1-year follow-up. A sample size of 1000 patients is required to detect a 7-day improvement or worsening of the mean days alive out of the hospital, type 1 error risk of 5% and power 90%.PERSPECTIVE: The AID-ICU trial is based on gold standard methodology applied to a large sample of clinically representative patients and will provide pivotal high-quality data on the benefits and harms of haloperidol for the treatment ICU-acquired delirium.